Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Sadly, the broadcasting is not working at the moment, so I will ask the Committee to adjourn for a few minutes while we sort that out.
Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (Public Services Committee Report)
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morris of Yardley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Public Services Committee Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (3rd Report, HL Paper 181, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to the report from the Public Services Committee, Reforming the Child Maintenance Service. In doing so, I thank everybody whose work has helped us to produce it. First and foremost, I thank those who gave us evidence, either in person in the round tables we had or through written contributions, talking about their own circumstances. It was very difficult, but they did so in an honest and open way, hoping that we would be able to bring about change that would make life for them and the people who use the service more effective than it is now. I also thank our team: Dan Hepworth, our committee clerk, Tom Burke, Claire Coast-Smith and Clayton Gurney. I thank all members of the committee as well. Some of them, like me, have since left the committee, so I offer a very special thanks for their work not only on this report but over the three years for which they served.
This is an important and unusual topic. It is one of a relatively narrow range of areas where we all agree that the state should intervene in family life for the sake of children. That is how important it is. Four million children in our country now live in separated families. Most parents resolve the financial issues around that separation between themselves—parents who can come together in their interests and those of the families and children, to make sure that children do not suffer any more than need be.
However, many, for lots of very understandable reasons, are not able to do that. It is that group who turn to the state and the use of the Child Maintenance Service. The number of cases considered by the CMS over the last decade has grown—and, one suspects, might grow further. The number of cases has gone up sevenfold and the amount of money paid by one parent to the other eightfold over a decade. For the 760,000 children whose parents use the CMS to resolve the financial consequences of a relationship breakdown, it is a vital service. We know the consequences of children growing up in poverty, with the conflict of parents unable to live together and disagreeing about the economic future of the family.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, summed it up very well in her appearance before our committee. She gave a rather long and convoluted Minister-style description of what the CMS does and then said simply at the end,
“our job is to get money to kids”.
For all the grand words, that is, in essence, what this is about: making sure that, in these circumstances, money gets to kids so that their lives are better.
It does work sometimes. The CMS can claim that it has kept 40,000 children out of absolute poverty, because it was able to resolve the problems as far as those families were concerned. Inevitably, the people who contacted us were those for whom the system had not worked—we know and understand that—but, looking at the evidence and the numbers, it is difficult not to conclude that the system does not work for too many families, parents and children. It is not an easy role for government; it is a last resort. It is for people whose relationship has failed to the extent that they are not able to resolve the difficulties. For the bureaucracy of the state to come into a relationship that is not thriving is difficult, but that is the task of the CMS, and it needs to do it well.
The CMS has only two aims in making sure that money gets to kids: to support children to stay out of poverty and to make sure that parents pay what they should. It is simple; if you get those two things right and make it work, you have solved the problem. It does not work at the moment for too many families, but for each of those families it fails 100%. Some public services can say, “We’re a success. We deliver 90% of our target”, or “We’re a success. We deliver 85% of our target”. But with the CMS, for every family for which it fails to deliver success, that is a 100% failure, and the consequences of that on children and the family are pretty dire.
Our recommendations are all designed to try to help the Government improve this service. I think the DWP wants it to do better; we felt no resistance. No official came to us and said, “Everything is brilliant. We don’t know what you’re talking about”. There is a general agreement that, for too many families, this does not work. As I said, our recommendations are built around our contribution to trying to make that better.
The central pillar of this must be how we decide what a child needs and how much a parent should pay. Unless you get those two things right, nothing else follows. What money does the child need so that they can thrive? What money should the parent pay given their financial circumstances? That is wound up in what the DWP calls the “calculation”. If that is robust, sound and agreed to by everyone, we stand a chance of the CMS being a successful organisation, but if it is not, it is built on false foundations—it is built on sand and will crumble. We did not meet anybody—not the Minister, the officials or the people who are meant to be using the system—who felt that that pillar of how the calculation is made is fit for purpose. It is not fit for purpose.
We are working on legislation that was passed in 2000, so it cannot be fit for purpose, because economic, work and family patterns have changed so much since that date. We are relying on a calculation—an algorithm—that works as life was in 2000. It simply takes as its basis HMRC data from the last year for which tax is available for any individual. We all do tax returns, so we know that it is dealing with data from a tax return that could be two years old. During that time, our economic lives, jobs and employment patterns might have changed—we may have changed jobs, have fewer or more hours, or our work may be insecure. All those things change, but the formula does not change with it; it still goes on what your tax return said, definitely one year ago and potentially even two.
It also takes as its second source of data the information that was electronically available in 2008. The year 2000 was 25 years ago—a quarter of a century—and 2008 is not much less time ago. Yet the only data it will deal with is what could be gathered electronically in 2008. If a paying parent gets income from a rental house or anything like that, none of it is taken into consideration because, in 2008, HMRC could not collect that data in an electronic form.
I am reminded of—I made this comparison in my own head—what is asked of families who claim the carer’s allowance. When you claim the carer’s allowance, if your income is not the same for five or six weeks, you are expected to tell the DWP straightaway so that it can immediately adjust the formula so that it does not end up paying more. However, the Child Maintenance Service does not do that. It does not ask for that information. If you give it that information, it cannot cope with it and, if it attempts to cope with it, it takes so long to deliver that the formula just does not work for the families.
The only proviso to try to bring this up to date is the 25% variance, where, if your income varies by 25%, the service is prepared to look at the formula within the year. However, you could lose 20% of your income and still be expected to pay the same amount of maintenance money as before. Equally, your income could go up by 24% but your child will not benefit from that increase until you do your next tax return. So that main pillar on which everything else is built does not work; it needs to be brought up to date.
When we listened to the evidence from the DWP and the Minister, we were very pleased to hear that they took this on board and were carrying out work to make sure that we had an up-to-date, relevant model on which we could build the rest of the system. I must admit, though, that they said it would be done by the end of the calendar year, but it has not been announced as yet. My first question is to seek an assurance from the Minister that, very late though it is, this work is in hand and will be announced soon.
I was grateful for the document that was sent to me last Thursday by the DWP, which concerned a consultation—that word worried me to begin with—on reform of the calculation. I was even more concerned when I read the opening sentence, which talked about the work that was taking place because the DWP was considering revising the formula. I seek an assurance that that phrase—“considering revising the formula”—should not be taken how it reads and that, in actual fact, we are not just considering it but are actually going to do it.
My second point on that is about family patterns. The formula is based on the income of the paying parent and does not take into account the income of the receiving parent. We no longer live a family life where one parent works and one parent cares, but the formula does not really take that into account. In some cases, it has an inbuilt incentive for parents with caring responsibilities not to let their child stay overnight with the paying parent for too many nights out of fear that the calculation will change again and the caring parent will not have enough money to bring up their child. That is the first pillar of the formula at which the committee looked and on which it made recommendations.
Secondly, even if the formula is out of date, it does need to be enforced. The second pillar is built on enforcing the calculation when the person does not pay. Again, the basis of enforcement has to be, “What is the definition of non-compliance? When does the system yank itself up to get going?”. Lots of things can go wrong, but when does the system actually say, “Hang on, this needs enforcing because somebody isn’t paying what they’re meant to pay”? It is as simple as that: what is the trigger for letting that happen? The trigger is that somebody has paid nothing in any given quarter in a calendar year. Think about that: they have paid nothing.
What happens as far as that is concerned is that you can pay something in the quarter, but not a lot, and the enforcement mechanism does not kick in. Some 46% of compliant parents pay over 90%. Some 23% pay less. But, in that first figure, only 46% of compliant parents paid something within a quarter. Less than half of compliant parents pay over 90%: not 100%, but over 90%. That means that you can pay very little and you do not fall into the category where enforcement measures will be put in place. If you do fall into the category where enforcement measures take place, it takes so long to use the system that receiving parents rarely feel that justice has been done. Some 2% of cases go to court, and that is not because 98% of enforcement cases get dealt with successfully and do not need to go to court. It is because the length of time that takes and the bureaucracy surrounding it militate against it happening.
There is another question I want to make sure the Minister answers in her response. We were given an undertaking that administrative liability orders, which have been on the books for a long time, would be in place by the end of the last calendar year but, to the best of my knowledge, we are still waiting for that to happen. We should be clear about what that means. The department can go to court to collect a given amount of arrears but if, by the time the case has got to court, the arrears are higher, the department does not get permission to claim the higher amount; it gets permission to claim only what it went to court for in the first place. That just does not make sense.
Our third pillar on this was communication. Communication with this group of people is vital. The portal that the DWP has set up works well. A lot of people said that they found it helpful because they could access it 24 hours a day and it worked for them. That was not true for everyone, but it worked for a lot of people. But lots of people still use the phone or want face-to-face contact, and it was that group for whom the communications system just did not work.
We should think of the pillars needed to offer the firm foundations for a child maintenance system that does the job. That would be an effective way of calculating what money needs to transfer from the parent who pays to the parent who cares. The second pillar would be a quick and robust way of enforcing things when that does not happen, and the third would be good and proper shared communication between the department and those people who use the service. On all those things, the system does not work as effectively as it needs to.
The people who use this service are very vulnerable. If they are not vulnerable people, they are people at a vulnerable time of their life. Many of the comments we heard were stronger from people who suffered domestic abuse or were in other kinds of relationships that were tough to begin with, without the system not working for them. Of course, the people who did not give us evidence and did not write to us, and whom we did not listen to, were the children. They do not have a voice because it is not their job to have a voice. But it really behoves us to remember that they are at the core of this. They are the reason we need a better child maintenance service than we have at the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to be on the committee formulating this report. We were led ably by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and it was a pleasure to work with the other members of the committee. I should pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She was on the committee but had to come off it because of her Front-Bench role. She had initially encouraged the committee to look into this, and I am glad that we did.
I will not pretend otherwise; I used to be Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I was there for three years. Aspects of the Child Maintenance Service were a key part, for me, of how we reduce poverty. I think in that I am united, not only with the committee but the Government, in seeing this as a way to try to reduce child poverty.
However, I am concerned that, in the response to very well-thought through recommendations and challenges to the Government, there were a series of missed opportunities. There are missed opportunities by the Government to do exactly what they say they want to do. It is “Mañana, mañana”, when we have not got some of the legislation we need. For example, I understand that, with an administrative liability order, there is probably still a problem with Scotland. But why do the Government not just get on and deal with the appropriate legislation for England and Wales while they tackle the issue in Scotland? There is no difficulty or constraint on trying to do one set of regulations tackling England and Wales and one for Scotland.
The issue about domestic abuse continues, with the commencement of another piece of legislation. I say to noble Lords that I have learned from that in a different way. For every Private Member’s Bill that I have been involved in or advised others on, I have always advised them to put an automatic commencement date in, because these Acts of Parliament were not put into effect. Again, I am concerned by the Government’s response. I recognise the work they are trying to do in tackling violence against women and girls, and the strategy there. But it feels as though they are saying, “This is too difficult” or “No, we can’t really do this”, despite it coming from a government Bill handed to a Back-Bencher in the previous Parliament.
Elsewhere in the responses we have seen that DWP civil servants are actively trained on domestic abuse and therefore can address it in a particular way, or, as I will come to shortly, removing every claim to collect and pay will solve this problem. We have not seen any legislation for that yet. I do not know whether the Government intend to bring that forward in this parliamentary Session. It certainly was not in the King’s Speech, but we know that it can happen regardless. It is worth tackling now, as indeed are some of the other measures, where the opportunity is there to act rather than wait, with—dare I say—the perfect being the enemy of the good, particularly when it comes to the children to whom my noble friends referred.
Going back to some of the issues that we have, one thing surprised me. When I was Secretary of State, I asked for a focus on people who are not working and to make them a priority for targeting by work coaches—to help these young people get into work. The reason that matters is that if you are on benefits, in essence, you will either pay nothing or you will pay £7 per week, deducted from your benefits. That is all. With collect and pay, 38% of the people on it end up with a deduction from benefits. You would like to think we would even get £7 per week through that, yet we know that the number of children catered for through direct pay is about 60%. About 40% are through collect and pay. Yet 220,000 children get zilch—not a single penny—through the collect and pay approach. That is based on the figures for the end of 2024, because that is what was available when we were formulating the report. I have not been able to do the same analysis to that extent. I appreciate that when I tabled a Question to the Government, it was considered too much to do that bit of analysis. I accept that some of these things will come out in statistics in due course.
Still, let us think about that: 220,000 children did not get a single penny. I am just reinforcing what my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley was saying—I call her “my noble friend”, because we were friends on the committee, being cross-party in that regard—that that is what we are dealing with. I suggest to the Minister that she should reflect on that and go back and look at prioritising employment support. We know that unemployment is going up. If this is a way of helping young children to get on in life, it is imperative that we help those who are not working at the moment to get into work, if for nothing else than for their children.
There was another missed opportunity with the research that the Government were due to publish last Monday. They were going to release the information that they had and then it came out on Friday. I have only had a chance to skim-read the 117-page document, but I was surprised by the questions that were asked. There is nothing surprising about the tensions between two parents. It was no surprise to me or, I expect, to members of the committee or indeed other noble Lords that the wealthiest people are the ones who seem to resent handing over quite a lot of their money. Meanwhile, those on the lowest incomes would have been quite happy to see more but did not necessarily expect people to be able to pay more because they knew the circumstances of the father—it is usually the father, I think 86% of the time—or mother of their child.
I was surprised that we did not get into other bits of research about changing the formula or the calculation. Indeed, I was disappointed by the rejection of the court approach of trying to work out a formula. The key thing about our recommendation about the court approach was that everything is put on the table. The big arguments that happen between parents are about the other person lying: “They’re hiding stuff”, “They’re hiding money”, “I know he’s got these things”, or even, “I know he’s increased his pension contributions deliberately to reduce his income so he doesn’t have to hand over money”. It is normally about the argument between the parents, while the child is the one who suffers.
I thought that the beauty of the court approach was that basically people have to put their assets on the table. You would like to think that there could be much more use of, as my noble friend referred to, a lot more of the HMRC data that we have today. Indeed, I hope that we will start to be able to use some of the powers that are there to try to understand where people are simply doing whatever they can because their—let us put it this way—loathing of the other parent is causing detriment. In that regard, my understanding is that the Government are not going to change the formula at all, although they may well move the variation where, if your income changes by more than 25%, the calculation is redone and will reduce that to 15%. Okay, that is fine, but it is another missed opportunity for comprehensive research and to look afresh at some of the key issues that cause division.
That brings me to the whole policy that the Government are continuing to press on with. We have not seen the legislation but it is about switching off direct pay. This is where the Government basically help with the calculation of what should be exchanged between two parents, as opposed to collect and pay, where money comes into DWP and then gets handed out with a difference in charge. I am sure that the Minister has looked at the recent survey of separated parents, which shows that a pretty high proportion of parents had arrangements—probably higher than shown in the statistics or in other assessments that the Government have done, particularly in the analysis of what the benefit would be from reducing the number of children in poverty as a consequence of these changes, which, frankly, is very low, given the big hurrah that has accompanied this.
It is worth looking at that in more detail, recognising that there are higher figures for what gets paid over than the Government may think from some of their other surveys. We should also recognise, in other research that the Government have published very recently, how the majority of parents believe that having this formula, or the approach of being able to use the Child Maintenance Service, is important to get some kind of enforcement without the need for all the other things that we are referring to, whether that is removing passports or going to prison, both of which happen exceptionally rarely.
One of the reasons given by the Government for moving away from direct pay is that it was a failure of direct pay that the numbers on direct pay have gone up, and the whole point of direct pay was that at some point people would come off the need for it. That does not seem very logical to me. In the results at the end of December 2019, there were about half a million families in this arrangement overall, both CP and DP, and there are about 780,000 in the latest statistics. It shows there is a clear appetite for wanting to use this process in order to try to make sure there is a clear way to get money to a child. I found it odd that, while the Government accept the recommendation that we should advertise this more, the very fact that parents use it was seen as a policy failure, because they were on direct pay and had not decided on a different sort of arrangement that did not involve the Child Maintenance Service.
I feel strongly about this, and I know the Minister knows that, because it comes down to money—it comes down to how much money is going to the child. We continue to see in the amount of debt that is left over that a considerably higher percentage of what was due to be collected is happening through the collect and pay service. We are seeing the compliance rates much higher on direct pay, even on the survey that was done a few years ago, where 60% was full compliance—full compliance, not over 90% of the 46%, but full compliance—through direct pay. I remember my argument with the officials at the time, and my noble friends were in the room. I am pointing to my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, who was a non-executive director of DWP at the time, and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. My argument was, where we had something like 300,000 children who are getting all the money that they are supposed to have, why would you kill off that process just to get them into a system where somebody has to hand over money to the Government to then pass it back?
I come to my final point, because I appreciate that the Minister and I will not necessarily agree on that, but I hope that she looks at this again genuinely for the sake of the children. In terms of some of the other recommendations, I think that it would be useful to see more on the family hubs. It was good to see from the MoJ that the use of the £500 mediation voucher has significantly increased. That is encouraging because, ultimately, we want to try to reduce conflict. In terms of thinking through some of the digital communication, I was slightly surprised that there did not seem to be a simple way to have a more proactive IT system. I am conscious that changing IT is always challenging. I was thinking in particular of paragraph 32 in the list of recommendations and conclusions.
Ahead of any legislation, I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation to publish an evaluation of the impact of moving all cases on to collect and pay. I am afraid that I just do not accept the comment that it will not cost any more money. It is physically impossible to see how that could be the case, or illogical, from my perspective. As I say, there will be missed opportunities for many children in this country. I know that that is not the outcome that the Government are seeking, but I hope that the Minister looks again at some of the recommendations from our committee and really makes a difference to the opportunities for children who, quite frankly, are some of the most deprived in our country.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for her leadership in what was an important and complex inquiry. I also thank her for what she said just now, which I found a forensic analysis of the operation of the Child Maintenance Service. I thank all the staff for their support to the committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, too, for her suggestion—for it was her suggestion—that we should undertake this inquiry when she was a member of the Public Services Committee.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for bringing her experience as a Minister to the Select Committee’s work, and for her important suggestions to improve outcomes for children. As she just said, it is about how much money is getting to the child. Getting money to kids who need it is a means to alleviate some child poverty.
I thank the staff of the Child Maintenance Service for the information that they provided and the explanation, from their perspective, of issues that we raised. I particularly thank them for their welcome when we visited the service in Hastings.
My conclusion, in view of the Minister’s response letter that we were sent in March, is that this committee’s work is not complete. I hope that, when we hear from her later, she will reassure us that progress will be made on our recommendations.
I agree with all the conclusions from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. As she said, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the system does not work well for many people. For some families, the system is a 100% failure, as she said. I was surprised to find how slow and inadequate enforcement is; it is simply not strong enough. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, just reminded us, too many children—220,000—are not getting a single penny. The Government run this service with 3,500 staff; as 220,000 children do not get a single penny, it seems a failure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, also reminded us, there is a big issue with communications—particularly, from my perspective, communications with those trying to use the system.
The inquiry sat for several months and reported in October last year. About half way through, I recall beginning to think about who was actually in charge of the Child Maintenance Service—the Minister, the department more broadly or the Child Maintenance Service itself. Indeed, I have now begun to wonder whether decisions are now being made elsewhere in Whitehall and not by the Minister and her department at all. I think this matters, but I cannot interpret what I have just said because the Minister’s letter of 6 March accepts that changes are needed but gives no indication of what the Government are going to do or when they are going to do it.
Primary legislation will be needed to remove direct pay and transfer those cases to collect and pay. That is the Government’s intention, but I cannot see—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, just pointed out—how such a transfer can be achieved at no cost, but that is what we have been told. I think the case has been made that direct pay should be retained for those who prefer it. Apparently, administrative liability orders will be legislated for as soon as possible. Of course they should, but that was true months ago. What is the plan for when the orders will be legislated for? The Minister may make a set of announcements when she speaks later.
As we took evidence, I grew more concerned by the performance of telephony services. We said in paragraph 24 of our conclusions and recommendations:
“It is unacceptable that parents still face an average 18-minute waiting time to speak to the CMS on the phone, with tens of thousands of callers waiting over an hour and over 500,000 calls being abandoned in the last year alone”.
I am reaching the conclusion that the CMS wants to run a digital service and reduce telephony, even though telephony enables a problem to be ironed out immediately through synchronous discussion. I hope the Minister will reassure us that the telephony systems will be improved, because they can be more efficient.
I also concluded that the service is very slow to change in both reaching decisions and then implementing them. The consultation on the child maintenance calculation, about which we heard further earlier this afternoon, needs to be very clear as to what its objective is. We also need a much stronger definition of non-compliance in collect and pay, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said.
I found the Minister’s response on key performance indicators, in her letter at the beginning of March, disappointing. The response to question 7, which asked why the DWP would not publish the number or proportion of calls facing excessive wait times despite holding the data, said that all developments to official statistics are progressed through the statistical work programme. When are performance indicators official statistics? If the information on key performance indicators is there, it should be made publicly available. They exist but they are, I regret to say, hidden from public gaze; I do not understand why that should be.
When Select Committees take evidence, one of the most valuable things they can do is listen to the recipients of a service. It is not enough to listen only to those providing the service. We held two engagement events, one with receiving parents and another with paying parents. Let me read out the key words in our report on bias:
“Almost all receiving parents believed the system was biased towards paying parents, allowing them to reduce their payments or evade altogether due to the lack, and timeliness, of enforcement and the loopholes in calculations”.
However, when I listened to paying parents, they said the opposite. As the report states:
“Almost all parents believed that the Child Maintenance system, its processes and the underlying legislation was biased against the paying parent, and in favour of the receiving parent”.
There are two ways of looking at those two different facts. One is to say, “If both the receiving and paying parents are unhappy, that probably means the Government have got it just about right”. However, the opposite is what I believe to be true: both the receiving and paying parents are right, and what they are talking about is their own personal experience of the operation of the service.
I hope that the Minister has read the summary notes in our report on our engagement events with both paying and receiving parents—I am sure she has—because I found them very instructive. One thing that was asked for was a shared narrative. Receiving parents were fed up with having to re-explain the circumstances of their case each time they rang up because a different person was receiving their call. That person would then get some information on a screen, but it would not be available to the person who had made the call. One thing I hope the Government will look at is creating a shared narrative on a screen that both participants in a call can read. I understand the difficulties around this being private information held by the Child Maintenance Service but, equally, it is very important that the receiving parent who wishes to raise an issue can be confident that the information they are talking about is available to the person with whom they are speaking.
In conclusion, it is true that in many cases the Child Maintenance Service works well, in particular in straightforward cases. Reforming the calculation formula has become a very urgent matter, and so has speeding up enforcement. I have the highest regard for the CMS’s 3,500 highly committed staff. They are in the front line of reducing child poverty, and over 1 million children depend on the system working to keep them out of poverty. Yet 100,000 children miss out on maintenance payments every quarter, and around one-third of separated families have no child maintenance arrangement at all. So I conclude that this is work in progress. I just wish that action to effect change could be speedier.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is a heartrending statistic that 4 million of the UK’s 14 million children live in separated families. That is a higher proportion than in many European countries. The drawbacks of that situation are well known. Children from one-parent families show lower average educational attainment, reduced social mobility and a higher likelihood of becoming young parents themselves. Almost all these patterns are driven by poverty—44% are living in poverty and instability, with reduced social capital—rather than by single parenthood as such. I add in parentheses that I hope this Government do not plan on any legislation that will cause more cohabiting parents to split, for that is what is likely if financial claims by one cohabitant against the other are enabled after three years, as has been suggested, because the parents will separate before those three years are up.
It behoves us to do all we can to make sure that absent parents, usually fathers, pay their fair share of support for the children they have left behind. The figures in the Public Services Committee report show otherwise. Some 31% of liable parents in the collect and pay scheme paid nothing. Some £28.1 million was due in one quarter. Enforcement is slow. The process and the calculations breed distrust between parents, and many of the families involved have suffered domestic abuse.
It is a matter of regret that the Government have rejected some of the committee’s recommendations, especially those at the heart of the system relating to the retention of direct pay and the treatment of victims of domestic abuse. The CMS is a vast service, employing over 5,000 people, and it suffers from what we are used to with national government services: lengthy waits on the phone and poor communication. That is why it seems to me that we have a troubling dissonance between the principle of child maintenance and the reality.
In family law, the interests of children are paramount. This principle permeates our legislation, court determinations and public debate. But, when we look at the practicalities of our system for securing support for those children left behind by one parent, there is little reflection of that principle in reality. The report of the Public Services Committee on reforming the CMS exposes that breach. It describes a system where, despite the paramountcy of the child’s interest, the delivery of support is complex, enforcement is weak and too many children are not getting what they need and deserve.
Child maintenance is not discretionary. It is a moral and legal obligation. Parents are under a continuing legal duty to maintain their children. Under the CMS, maintenance is due to children usually only until they are 16, or 20 if they are still in certain types of education, oddly excluding university education. Again, I add in parentheses that the Financial Provision Bill I have introduced in this House on several occasions would make maintenance mandatory to age 21 as the default position. The duty of parents to support is regardless of whether they were married, and the CMS is the infrastructure for where court or family payments are not working.
There is a striking contrast between the flimsy support for child maintenance and the vast legal structure of payments to divorced spouses, something lawyers are heavily focused on. Payments to divorced wives occupy large amounts of court time and chalk up disproportionately expensive costs going to the lawyers who represent them. Spousal maintenance is based on need, compensation and the ending of a partnership. It involves significant calculation and disclosure of all assets and income. Amazingly, however, assets and property, unearned income and overseas income are not taken into account in calculating child maintenance. On paper, children’s claims are paramount, while spouses’ claims are contingent. But children’s maintenance is compulsory and spousal maintenance is conditional in law. The way the system works shows something very different in the order of priorities.
The Public Services Committee’s report shows that non-payment of child maintenance is widespread. Much has been said about that by speakers already. If custody is shared, there is a reduction in the amount paid to the person who, in common sense, is the caring parent. Claims for more custody may serve to reduce the amount that the largely absent father pays. Even when attempts are made to enforce the payment, compliance is only partial. Too many children are left in poverty, which this Government want to end. So often we have heard that this Government are lifting children out of poverty. Are they? I would go so far as to call the system a national disgrace, in part because taxpayers are left to fill the gap that absent fathers have left.
This has come about because child maintenance is often, unusually, not a matter for the courts. Even in divorce cases, the amount paid to children is often an afterthought, tacked on to the end of a judgment which is all about the needs of the ex-wife and the ex-husband’s ability to pay. For others not in the court system, as we know, the CMS operates. But the courts focus on individual cases, while the CMS has to deal with hundreds of thousands of cases, so the CMS relies on formulaic processes and standard arrangements. One can see that AI will take over this process one day, and it might well be a much better outcome.
In the direct pay system, the payer and payee are left to deal with each other once a calculation has been made, so there is little evidence as to whether it is really working. Enforcement is slow and reportedly not vigorous enough. This is such a contrast to the way divorced wives are treated. For them, there is individual scrutiny. The entirety of the couple’s finances is set out. If payment is not made, one can go back to court. There is professional representation on both sides. I am not saying that all children’s support orders can be handled like that, because there are, sadly, so many. But it is a bad contrast of the two systems. Divorce maintenance can be an expensive protracted struggle, and it too is having to face up to new emphasis on domestic abuse. But divorce gets the level of judicial scrutiny, comprehensive treatment and enforceability that children do not get. A single parent might be better advised to claim maintenance through Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, which applies to them in court.
The committee’s report would improve matters for children. It is a matter of regret that the Government have disagreed with some of its central proposals, and I hope we will hear why. The Government have agreed to stronger enforcement tools and faster appeals. They have agreed to improved staff training, especially relating to domestic abuse cases, and to improve communications. The Government have accepted that the calculation of maintenance should be reviewed, but there is no detail. This needs improved income assessment and stronger investigation of the ability to pay. In contrast to the committee’s report, the Government want to move to a single system of collect and pay, replacing direct pay. This may protect payees whose relationship is troubled, but it may at the same time increase hostility and disturb arrangements that were working.
Before 1991, child maintenance was largely a matter for the magistrates’ courts. After all these years of a state child maintenance service in different guises, one wonders whether it was right to remove it from the supervision of the courts. Has the pendulum swung too far to an administrative, impersonal system at the expense of trust, openness and enforceability? Perhaps more oversight by magistrates would help. In the meantime, we are letting down children, and the consequences of this will carry on down the generations. Studies have shown that the effects of poverty on a child continue through their life and pass on, in turn, to their own children.
I ask the Minister: will the Government get on and reform those limited parts of the system that they have agreed to reform? They have said that they want to end child poverty. Here is an opportunity for them which they must seize immediately; there can be no reason why they should not. I conclude by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for the wonderful work that she and the rest of the committee have done on this neglected, complicated but vital system.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, her committee and its support team for this report, which covered much ground and recommended far-reaching reforms that stand a good chance of improving outcomes. They address long-running problems with the service and its precursors.
To declare my interests, my parliamentary adviser, Dr Samantha Callan, is the Government’s independent reviewer of the Child Maintenance Service’s response to domestic abuse, which is frequently mentioned in the committee’s report. She is also the director of the Family Hubs Network, which she and I co-founded in 2019 to show government the potential for family hubs to be a game-changer for families. Thanks to this Government, building on what the Conservatives achieved, they are now in every local authority in England. This is relevant because the Select Committee’s report envisaged a clear role for early intervention and support for separating parents that is easily available, community-based and delivered particularly in family hubs. Finally, I also took the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act through the Lords.
This public service comes under attack every day, often for good reasons. However, after Dr Callan went under the bonnet of the CMS, she said in her January 2023 report that she found it to be a “reform-minded” organisation. It has the almost impossible task of helping separated parents, some of whom have never lived together, come to a durable arrangement for financially supporting children they were both responsible for bringing into the world.
We are a country that cares about child poverty. This service can be unreservedly concerned with its alleviation, because all maintenance payments are now disregarded for tax and benefit purposes. That said, we need to communicate more effectively to all parents, not just those who are separating, that it is parents who have the primary responsibility to provide for their children, not state agencies. Separated parents also have a responsibility to be single-mindedly child-focused in their dealings with each other, to avoid further harm to their children than that caused by the split itself or by being born to a home where one biological parent has always been non-resident. The Minister acknowledged this to the committee when she outlined the CMS’s role to facilitate payments between separated parents
“without causing any further harm”.
That harm must be mitigated, not least by the CMS working quickly and efficiently.
However, we need to acknowledge that the seeming intractability of problems facing this public service stems from our culture of hyperindividualism and family breakdown. Undoubtedly, some relationships must end, but we now take for granted the very high numbers of UK children not living with both their parents—around 44%, according to the IFS. It also highlights the fragility and complexity of so many UK families compared with other countries. Any reforms should learn lessons from abroad, but the character and prevalence of fractured families here set us apart, and what works elsewhere may falter here. I am not counselling despair or hand-wringing: quite the opposite. This policy area is another where the Government must grasp the nettle and be willing to make tough choices, and it is not true that the past 14 years were squandered in this regard.
The coalition implemented the Henshaw review commissioned by the previous Labour Government and legislated in a very tough environment to deliver the 2012 system. It has proven to be far from perfect but, fast-forwarding to 2023, the Conservatives also began to implement the Callan review, including by introducing two small but important Private Members’ Bills that would have improved enforcement and the service received by customers reporting domestic abuse.
However, the Select Committee’s report highlights that the secondary legislation required to bring these into force has not been forthcoming. I am particularly troubled by parents trying to obtain child maintenance when abuse from ex-partners is ongoing. Under Direct Pay, a paying parent cannot be stopped from putting money into their ex-partner’s bank account under the reference “for prostitution services”—if they put money in at all. Receiving parents can perpetrate emotional and psychological abuse by falsely telling the CMS that payments have not been made, so their ex becomes unjustly entangled in protracted and highly distressing enforcement proceedings. DWP research found that 71% of receiving parents and 51% of paying parents in Direct Pay report domestic abuse from the other parent. The CMS itself said that Direct Pay is
“not fit for purpose for victims of domestic abuse”,
given that it is
“difficult to pick out victims … comprehensively and reliably”.
So abuse is rife within the CMS customer base—not just male on female and not just paying parent on receiving parent. It is often insidious, subtle and very difficult to prove, so I have some sympathy with this Government’s plans to abolish Direct Pay altogether. However, I await the Minister’s later response to the Select Committee’s robust challenge concerning the likely efficacy of this reform and its supporting data.
I am also concerned that the legislation will simply never be brought forward because, while the organisation may be reform minded, nothing will happen unless the Government are of the same stamp. CMS reform is a can that has been kicked down the legislative road on many occasions, despite the severely outdated primary legislation that underpins many of its key operations.
The Select Committee report also mentions “lack of transparency” in calculations, about which we have heard a lot today. It helps explain why so many parents—paying and receiving—are deeply unhappy with the CMS service. A DWP survey of customers in contact with the CMS found that overall customer satisfaction was 39%, with only 47% of receiving parents and 31% of paying parents saying that they were satisfied. The committee cited important affordability and fairness issues being repeatedly raised in many reviews stretching back to 2014, and referred extensively to the planned calculation review. However, I understand that a letter to stakeholders from the Minister at the end of last week said that this planned public consultation on rates, thresholds and calculations will not now go ahead. The Minister cited a single study programme of quantitative and qualitative research with paying and receiving parents that was considered to undermine irredeemably the case for any further consultation, let alone reform.
I believe that this Government are in danger of putting too much weight and responsibility on study respondents, albeit those with so-called “lived experience”, to avoid making difficult reforms. These parents’ views are of course important, but they must be balanced against the considerable body of other evidence, including that provided by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 2019, which demonstrates considerable unfairness and anachronism in the system.
The Select Committee said:
“It is unacceptable that successive governments have failed to update the child maintenance calculation ... This has ultimately led to children receiving less money. Similarly, it is disappointing that no Government has sought to update the legislative framework set down in 1991 and amended in 2000”.
If this Government exonerate themselves from addressing these concerns, the CMS will be yet another area of public service the public has no confidence in. The Select Committee found the proportion of families using the CMS was lower than in 2012, and the proportion of families with no arrangement was higher. If they are abandoning their plans to review calculations, and the Direct Pay reforms are years away, what will the Government do to increase public confidence in the CMS? Also, while the proportion of families in family-based arrangements has risen from 29% in 2012 to 43% in 2024, how will they encourage more, and more durable, family-based arrangements so it is needed by even fewer parents?
Both receiving and paying parents say that support for separated parents to help them maintain family-based arrangements is “unhelpful” and “inadequate”. Many receiving parents are unaware of its existence. The committee concluded that far more support for separated parents was needed, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner proposed better integration of the CMS with family hubs. Again, support for families early in what is typically a very difficult and confusing separation and child maintenance journey would likely reduce conflict; 30% of parents from one study said that could encourage good working arrangements.
Currently, the CMS does not operate within the family hubs network. The Government’s January 2026 response to the Select Committee report said that where support for separating parents seeking advice on the CMS was not available through a family hub, staff should signpost to other relevant services in the area. Could the Minister give us some examples of the support this is referring to? Apart from programmes such as Reducing Parental Conflict, I am not aware of any new services that have been funded or have sprung up in this area. The Callan review suggested, for example, that courses mandated by family courts for warring couples should be accessible to parents before they get that far.
The Select Committee also recommended siting mediation in family hubs as that can greatly help parents reach durable family-based arrangements. But access to mediation in and through family hubs will not happen just by saying it should. What cross-government work are the DWP, MoJ and DfE doing so that families get this and other help with child maintenance that has simply not existed in the past? How will family hubs enable the child maintenance system to work with other organisations? The April 2026 guidance for family hubs shows many signs of a better government-wide approach, so I am hopeful that the Minister will have good news to share, and I will gladly work with her, through the family hubs network, to make it a reality.
I will end where I began, with the reality that the CMS is grappling primarily with problems not with money but with relationships. The recent DWP research on child maintenance calculations says that
“relational, as well as financial factors are key in understanding non-compliance. For example, there may be a complex two-way relationship between conflict and non-compliance”.
Preventing high levels of non-compliance has never been successfully achieved by any iteration of the UK child maintenance agency. We need to take a different approach, with a much greater emphasis on helping parents avoid entrenched conflict and relationship breakdown in the first place.
Australia and the Nordic countries have family relationship centres all over the country with these specific aims. Australia is looking at our family hubs to learn how to integrate relational support with debt, housing and other services including, crucially, those delivered by the voluntary sector. Are this Government willing to learn from them how we can systematically and comprehensively support families in their relationships before, during and after separation?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak about the Public Services Committee’s report, Reforming the Child Maintenance Service. This was the first Select Committee of which I have been a part since I joined the House. I have to say, in the end, I came away frustrated: frustrated for the children who are living in poverty because this support system is simply failing them; frustrated for both groups of parents, whose genuine concerns on both sides we heard; frustrated at the limited response from the department; and frustrated that, although we have shone a light on this area and made some constructive recommendations, it will clearly remain in the “too hard to fix” pile and little will change at the pace that is needed. However, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for her excellent chairmanship and leadership throughout this investigation. I also thank noble Lords for their excellent contributions today; we have heard detailed analysis of many of the issues that we explored and grappled with in this complex area.
Child maintenance is not an abstract administrative matter. It is about whether children receive the financial support to which they are entitled. The system must reflect modern-day living and the complexity of today’s family arrangements; it must be up to date. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out, child maintenance is not optional but a moral and legal responsibility.
The committee’s central message is clear: the current system is not working well enough for too many families. Too many parents do not engage with the service at all. Too many arrangements break down. Too many cases enter the system only after problems have already become entrenched and, at times, the experience of using the service is confusing, slow and a hindrance rather than a help.
The committee’s recommendations focus on making the system fairer and more workable by, for example, reviewing how a child’s costs are split between both parents; calling for real-time data-sharing with HMRC so that calculations are based on current income and assets, rather than on something from the distant past; considering the receiving parent’s income and assets; examining whether the current formula may discourage work; and reconsidering changes to direct pay. We made 41 straightforward recommendations that could make a real difference with accurate, timely and simple communications throughout. My noble friend Lord Shipley’s analysis of the telephone service’s poor performance highlights a simple, basic problem with the service that could easily be improved.
Too often, policy in this area is presented as though there was a simple choice between supporting the receiving parent and protecting the paying parent. However, having taken part in round tables with both sets of parents, it is clear to me that, in reality, the system must do both. Children need support, but parents also need arrangements that are realistic, enforceable and trusted. A system that ignores affordability is never going to secure compliance. I found both the round tables that were hosted by some of our staff really emotional. We heard real-life examples of where people had even considered taking their own life because of the financial pressures they were under as they tried to put food on the table and provide for their children. It was heartbreaking. No service is in a good position when you see that as a reality.
A key recommendation is our call for better support for families. As we have heard today, we called for an increase in access to mediation for separating parents—only where appropriate and with the right safeguards, of course—which could increase the effectiveness of child maintenance arrangements. We also recommended improving access to early interventions relating to child maintenance, including information and support; and that these should be part of, or delivered through, services such as family hubs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlighted, the Government’s response is a missed opportunity. It appears to accept that some reform is necessary, but little is going to change quickly. In my opinion, that does not fit with this Government’s absolutely right aspiration to keep children out of poverty. Families are living with the consequences of this system every day. As I say, this issue is not abstract. It is about rent. It is about food. It is about school uniforms. It is about basic home life.
As we stated in our report, over 100,000 children are missing out on maintenance payments every quarter. Just under half of children in families in the collect and pay arrangements, where the Government can take enforcement action, receive no maintenance. Something has to change. This cannot stay in the too-difficult pile any longer or be kicked down the road further, to build on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I hope the Minister will take on board the strength of concern in our report, and from Members across the House today, and grasp this issue. I know she cares about it, because she was very passionate when she came before the committee. Children and families cannot be left in this situation any longer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I first declare an interest, in that I was a member of the Public Services Committee. I loved being on that committee—and you will not hear that about many committees, I can tell you—and found it to be a really stimulating experience, so I applaud the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley.
Along with my noble friend Lady Coffey, I had responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service when I was at the DWP, and we worked well together on that. I was horrified, and at times incandescent with rage, at the lengths to which people went to avoid paying their child maintenance. If I had the time, I would keep noble Lords here with some of the stories; they would make your hair curl.
When we are talking about child maintenance, it is easy to make the discussion about parents: who owes whom what, whether they are paying on time or the correct amount and, often, how the split occurred in the first place and who is to blame. These conversations and questions are important but also largely tangential. The person at the centre of this is the child. Being a child with parents who split up is not easy. Research shows that children with split parents are more likely to face lower academic achievement, more behavioural or emotional difficulties, a higher risk of economic disadvantage and a strain on relationships later in life. Children from these backgrounds often have to grow up fast to act as mediators between adults who do not have a stable or amicable relationship with one another, and they often feel adrift. Other children go back to their house, but these children go back to mum’s house or dad’s house, never to a place that they can call their home. Children with parents who have not split amicably can suffer even more, and they often face this alone. Being a child in this situation, which they did not choose, can be lonely, upsetting and confusing, and all too often these children can feel like extras in a drama being played out between their parents.
Child maintenance is therefore more than just a payment between adults; it is a mechanism designed to go some way towards addressing the disadvantages that children from broken homes face early in their lives, one of which is a reduced household income if living with a single parent. Ensuring that the child maintenance system works well is therefore fundamentally important and must be an absolute priority for all of us in this Room today.
Given the importance of getting this right, the committee’s report makes deeply concerning reading. It tells us, as others have said, that around 4 million out of 14 million children in the UK live in separated families. That is millions of children whose security and stability may depend, at least in part, on the Child Maintenance System working properly. The report also raises serious concerns about the way that payments are calculated. The formula is now more than 20 years old and is based largely on the income of the paying parent. The committee finds that the system lacks transparency, does not properly reflect the variety of modern family circumstances and may leave room for income to be underreported.
As I understand it, tax evasion is unlawful. Child maintenance evasion should be treated exactly the same. The Government’s own recently published research on child maintenance calculations reinforces many of the committee’s concerns. It found that parents on both sides of the system frequently regard existing arrangements as unfair and that compliance is influenced not only by affordability but by conflict between parents and wider family relationships. That should remind us that confidence in the system depends not only on effective enforcement but on transparency, fairness and the ability of parents to understand how decisions are reached.
I also note the Government’s proposal to reduce the income tolerance threshold from 25% to 15%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, so ably described, so that changes in parents’ earnings are reflected more quickly in maintenance calculations. In principle, that appears to be a sensible attempt to make the system more responsive to real-world income changes. However, it also underlines the broader point made by the committee that the current framework relies heavily on historical data and assumptions that can quickly drift away from a family’s actual circumstances.
It is worth noting that concerns about the calculation framework are not new. Successive reviews have identified questions around fairness, transparency and affordability, and Governments of different political colours have sought to address them. The challenge now is to ensure that this long-running programme of reform is carried forward rather than allowed to drift.
I come to enforcement. My first ever visit as a Minister was to the Child Maintenance Service in Plymouth. It was a massive place with lots of staff, and I talked to them at length about enforcement. The team at the Child Maintenance Service responsible for enforcement in my time was outstanding. Its members deserved all the credit they could get. They never flinched from dealing with situations: it was just that they had too many situations to deal with. If my friend the Minister can do one thing, it should be to get more people into enforcement to get more money for children. If we spent more—here is a Tory talking about spending more—and we calculated the potential return on investment, we could make life better for these young people.
Ultimately, this all comes back to the child. That is why I particularly welcome the committee’s recommendation that the child should be placed at the centre of the calculation formula, with their welfare and future made the paramount consideration. We should remind ourselves that these children did not cause this situation. They did not choose it and did not ask for it, yet they are the ones most profoundly affected by it.
Other recommendations from the report also seem sensible and would allow the system to deliver for children. Improving enforcement, redefining what counts as non-compliance, and giving parents clear and timely updates would all help ensure that more maintenance payments are actually made. It is simply unacceptable that, under the current system, too many parents are able to avoid making payments owed to their children. The evidence shows that this is most often fathers, who on average earn more than mothers, leaving the mothers to carry the financial burden alone.
The committee also pays special attention to vulnerable parents and those who are at risk of financial and domestic abuse, which is most welcome. When someone becomes the receiving parent, they face serious financial costs and are particularly open to the risk of financial abuse. If someone has suffered a difficult separation from a partner, this is heightened even further. Proposals such as allowing direct access to collect and pay for abuse victims are worth consideration by the Government.
There is one further aspect of the committee’s report that deserves particular attention. While child maintenance is often discussed in financial terms, the evidence presented to the committee reminds us that the underlying challenges are frequently relational as much as economic. My noble friend Lord Farmer outlined this eloquently and in a way that we should all be able to understand. That is why I welcome the committee’s emphasis on early intervention and support for separated parents. Helping parents access advice, mediation and practical support at an earlier stage may not only reduce conflict but increase the likelihood of durable arrangements that work in the best interests of children.
Family hubs, which have grown under this Government, have a great impact and effect. Making them the centre, and a place where child maintenance can be discussed and managed, is a no-brainer. I am sure the Minister will take this away and try to make it happen. I hope she does; if not, we will all be on to her.
Ultimately, if we are serious about improving outcomes for children, we must do more than administer payments efficiently; we must also support parents to manage separation in a way that minimises conflict, fulfils parental responsibilities and places the welfare of children above all else. It is important to recognise that many of the issues identified by the committee have been the subject of reform efforts over a number of years. The introduction of the 2012 system under the coalition Government, subsequent work to strengthen enforcement and more recent measures aimed at improving protections for victims of domestic violence or abuse all reflect a recognition that the status quo was and is not good enough. While those reforms have not resolved every problem, they provide a foundation on which further improvements can and should be built.
The report produced by the committee gives the Government some serious food for thought. As a number of noble Lords have observed, lasting reform will require us not only to improve the mechanics of the system but to support families earlier, reduce conflict where possible and help parents make arrangements that put children first. Whether or not children should be properly supported, the fulfilment of parental duties encouraged and vulnerable people recognised are not matters of partisan difference; I know that there is a great deal of sympathy across the House for meaningful change to make sure that these are upheld.
The question for the Government is therefore not whether reform is needed, but whether they will now complete and implement the reforms that have already been identified. Families who depend upon the Child Maintenance Service cannot afford for necessary changes to remain indefinitely under review. I will be listening carefully to the response from the Minister on the concerns that have been raised by everybody who has spoken in this debate and that in the Chamber today.
I thank the committee again for its work—I am sorry that I was not with your Lordships—and for enabling us to have this debate. There is much in the report to command our attention but, my goodness, there is more to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the work is not complete.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Public Services Committee, especially the former chair, my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley, for her serious work on this. I am also grateful for the detailed and constructive report and express my thanks to the clerks who worked on it and the witnesses who informed it.
The Government share the committee’s focus on two priorities: helping children in separated families to avoid poverty and ensuring that both parents contribute their fair share. As was observed by various noble Lords, children do not choose for their parents to break up, and partners may leave each other, but they do not leave their children. The CMS plays a vital role in improving outcomes for children in separated families.
My noble friend Lady Morris said that I summarised at the end of my appearance—I apologise for what was clearly a long waffle beforehand—that the CMS’s job is
“to get money to kids”.
That is absolutely its job, and it does it: through both family-based arrangements and those made by the CMS, an estimated £2.9 billion is transferred each year to children in separated families, keeping around 120,000 children out of poverty. For clarity, “poverty” here means relative low income after housing costs. As has been pointed out, tackling child poverty is at the heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. We estimate that the child poverty strategy that has been brought out will lift 550,000 children out of poverty in the final year of this Parliament.
But the committee is right: too many children still do not receive the support that they are due. So this Government have set out ambitions for the CMS to help change this. We want to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, particularly those who are vulnerable, and we want to tackle non-compliance head on by moving to a single, streamlined service, where we can quickly identify and tackle missed payments.
I will try to cover the very range of things I have done in 20 minutes. When I fail, I will write to pick up those questions that I do not manage to answer. Even at the speed I speak, I do not think I will get through them all, but I will try to slow down so that Hansard can pick it up—if not passing dogs.
I say at the start that we all need to be realistic about this. I was struck by the fact that eight of us have spoken, of whom three either are or have been Ministers with responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service, either directly or from a more exalted standpoint. Successive Governments have brought in reforms of different kinds, yet we keep hearing about problems. Our job is to recognise that, when we are dealing with something as challenging as a service that faces parents at probably the worst point in their lives—when their lives have fallen apart and things are incredibly tense—the state needs to step in, as my noble friend Lady Morris said. But we must also recognise that the state cannot solve that problem, so it has to do all it can to encourage and enable parents to support their kids. We will keep pursuing continuous improvement, but I do not want to raise the idea that there is a single silver bullet. If there was, previous Governments would have found it, and the Ministers around this table would certainly have fired it—I have no doubt about that. I will do my best.
Let us talk about the removal of Direct Pay. It absolutely remains our complete and firm intention to legislate to remove Direct Pay, which we estimate could result in around 20,000 fewer children living in poverty. Moving to a single service, where the CMS monitors and transfers payments, will address the long-standing issues highlighted by our research into Direct Pay, including hidden non-compliance and the burden on parents having to chase payments themselves. It will also reduce unwanted contact between parents.
I realise that I have failed completely to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of the case for doing this. I will have a brief go, but I listened carefully to her comments. At the heart of this is the fact that, under the current Direct Pay model, the CMS cannot routinely monitor payments. That means that non-compliance can go undetected unless a parent reports an issue. Our research on this is interesting. It suggests clearly that only 60% of receiving parents report receiving the full amount due and that only 40% get it on time. Direct Pay is not performing brilliantly, and there are problems in Collect and Pay. We now know that Direct Pay is hiding significant amounts of non-compliance, so moving into a single service will enable routine monitoring, allowing earlier identification of missed payments and intervention.
Let us face it: Collect and Pay is made up of previously ineffective Direct Pay cases. Under the previous reforms, you can get into Collect and Pay only if you fail in Direct Pay, so Collect and Pay involves the people who did not manage to make it work in Direct Pay. Collect and Pay shows that, when payment behaviour is visible and enforceable, just over half of parents are fully compliant and a further quarter are partially compliant. Given that those are the difficult cases, that is something we need to hold on to.
Under those reforms, well-functioning Direct Pay cases should carry on. If things are working, there is no reason to assume that they cannot continue in a family-based arrangement, as long as we provide support with the calculation. If they are not working, they come into the main system. That will help compliance, and it will benefit victims and survivors of domestic abuse by removing the need for parents to chase missed payments or engage with each other. We will work closely with domestic abuse organisations to ensure that communications and support are safe, targeted and effective. The reality is that, when Direct Pay is removed, the level of non-compliance we anticipate being revealed could indeed put a bump in the statistics on non-compliant cases. But all that would be doing is surfacing hidden non-compliance in Direct Pay, not creating new levels of non-compliance.
Noble Lords are understandably keen to find out about the timing. As I have said, our firm intention is to remove Direct Pay, but we will have to wait to get primary legislation to do so. I want to make the changes as soon as possible, but the Committee will understand that the Government have a crowded legislative agenda and we have to take our place in that alongside the many other vital reforms that departments are pursuing. We are continuing to develop legislation on a range of matters related to welfare reform and I remain determined to legislate on this and other important matters as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we are taking action to make it easier for parents to switch to the Collect and Pay service through our improvements to the change to service type process and being clear in our communication about what support is available for victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
On the additional workload—I have totally failed to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on this, too; my track record is not excellent here, but let me try again—I reassure the Committee that compliant Direct Pay cases require the same amount of work and caseworker resource as compliant cases in Collect and Pay. The main extra cost to DWP as a result of these reforms will be administering previously unidentified non-compliant cases. If the workload goes up, it will get in money from cases that at the moment are simply hidden.
There are also benefits in two other areas. First, some compliant cases will move to family-based arrangements and will not require the CMS to intervene at all. Secondly, the removal of the process of changing them from one to the other accounts for around 1,000 cases a month, and the resources released by ending that burden will be redirected where they are most needed, supporting the increased volume of cases that need support from the CMS.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and others raised domestic abuse. The CMS has substantially strengthened its processes, due in no small part to the work of his supporter, Samantha Callan. I am very grateful for that work, which the department has read and benefited greatly from. We have certainly improved caseworker training and signposting resources, with a dedicated domestic abuse plan for caseworkers to follow in supporting victims. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned the Domestic Abuse Act. We know from our research that most victims and survivors of domestic abuse are unlikely to have enough evidence to pass the tests we would have to apply were we to introduce the provisions of that Act. The Act requires the Secretary of State to set out evidence requirements for domestic abuse in regulations. My latest and best advice from officials looking at this in detail is that that evidence would have to be court-based. That is because it would need to be verifiable and, when it is provided, could not be disputed by the other party because it has already been litigated. Someone could try to JR it, but if it has been through the courts that gets more difficult.
For victims and survivors who have enough evidence, we know it can be traumatic for them to relive the abuse by having to produce it and go through it again. We want to avoid that wherever possible. Our priority has to be making the CMS more effective at supporting all victims and survivors engaging directly with the service. However, I want to reassure the Committee that we are not closing the door on this; we will continue to explore evidence-based ways that could allow us to commence the Act in future, should it be needed as part of a broader package.
I turn to the calculation, which my noble friend Lady Morris and many others commented on. We looked carefully at the committee’s recommendations. We recognise that, to secure voluntary compliance, parents need to have faith that the amounts are fair and understand how they are calculated. That is why we conducted a review of the child maintenance calculation, focusing on ensuring that it strikes the right balance between both parents to encourage compliance and secure money for kids.
For the record, I will say what we will and will not be doing on this. Following the review, I am pleased to advise the Committee that we plan to reduce the income tolerance from 25% to 15% so that changes to income are captured more quickly and assessments remain fair to both parents. I hope that makes my noble friend Lady Morris happier. She spoke about things such as rental income; we will include unearned income within the standard calculation, which will ensure that liabilities more accurately reflect parents’ full financial circumstances. Those reforms will help ensure that the system better reflects how families earn and receive income today, helping deliver more consistent support for children.
We looked carefully at the committee’s recommendations on how child maintenance is calculated. While we agree with the spirit of many of them, we will not be adopting them, which I know will be disappointing. For example, we know from the experience of before the child support system was introduced that the family court approach added complexity, created delays and reduced the number of children able to benefit from maintenance. We are determined to avoid that. I take the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose expertise obviously far exceeds mine in this area. However, having looked at the problems created—this was the reason the administrative system was introduced in the first place—we do not feel that that is the way forward.
I will say that there are ways in which the court can do things. Parents are not obliged to use the CMS. They can, if they both choose, make their own arrangements or seek an order through the courts if they agree. Once a court order for child maintenance is in place, after 12 months someone can choose to come to the CMS. The courts also play a role where receiving parents want top-up above the threshold for the Commons, but we think that, fundamentally, for the bulk of parents an administrative system is the way forward.
We looked at whether more significant changes to the calculation, including changes to the rates and thresholds, would deliver the improvements in fairness and compliance that we wanted. As part of this, we undertook extensive research with users of the service, which has now been published, to understand how parents’ behaviours may be impacted by potential changes. Having carefully considered that research and other evidence through the review, it is clear that the case for proceeding with such large-scale change is currently not sufficiently strong. We will therefore not be moving to reform rates and thresholds at this time.
We are confident that the current approach, which uses HMRC income information to assess liabilities, provides stability and certainty for parents, subject to the changes that I have mentioned about the sensitivity threshold and types of unearned income. It gives us the flexibility to reflect a parent’s current income in the calculation where appropriate, which we can verify using real-time information for PAYE-paying parents. Alongside that, the variation process plays a crucial role; it allows parents to ask us to consider income or expenses falling outside the standard calculation, so that works better.
I am conscious of time, but I shall say another word on that. The judgment was in the end that the sharp end of the calculation is essentially a zero-sum game. If the amount of money due for one parent goes up, that received by the other parent goes down. That means that any reform affects the whole case load in extraordinarily different ways, and makes it very difficult to target any changes that would reliably ease affordability for the right parents without substantially reducing liability for many parents who are only just managing to support their children at existing levels.
The evidence that we have found does not demonstrate that the reform of rates of thresholds would deliver a meaningful improvement in the amount of maintenance paid. For example, we looked at making a change in the form of a hypothetical increase to the flat rate. Both receiving and paying parents felt that the change would have limited impact: receiving parents genuinely viewed modest increases as not enough to make a meaningful difference; paying parents felt that even a small increase would add to financial strain and be difficult to manage. In the end, we felt that this was not the time to do it. Changing liabilities during a period of continued cost of living pressures could inadvertently risk destabilising existing arrangements and result in lower compliance. I recognise that that is a disappointment to the Committee, but I wanted to be clear about opposition on that.
I turn to another favourite subject, implementing administrative liability orders. Work is still under way to implement ALOs. As the Committee knows, while child maintenance is reserved, enforcement in Scotland has to be carried out through the Scottish judicial system, which is devolved. We are working very closely with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Scottish Government to get ALOs operating across Great Britain, and we will introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible.
Just to be clear, it is the Scottish judicial system through which we would have to implement this, but there are complexities there. It turns out that uncoupling the liability order from the rather complex Scottish judicial process while retaining the ability to exercise the full range of enforcement measures through Scottish courts has proven significantly more challenging than I assume was envisaged when work began on commencing the powers in the 2023 Act by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. My department is working closely with the Office of the Advocate General and other key powers in the Scottish judicial system to find a solution that works that for everyone. I have personally spoken with the Advocate-General to make sure that we have her full support.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I looked at commencing the powers in different parts of the UK at different times but, as it turns out, that simply creates different legal problems and operational challenges, as well as meaning that not everyone benefits. Nobody wants this to be implemented quickly more than I do; as soon as it possibly can be, it will be.
I want to clarify one thing on enforcement. The idea that there is no enforcement if you pay anything at all is simply not true. Stats are collected on those who pay anything to show compliance. There are technical reasons for not using stats showing 100% compliance or not, which I think we explained to the committee at times—but essentially I can write and explain that in detail, if it is helpful. There are technical reasons why parents who are in fact paying what we tell them may not show as paying 100% compliance, which both my predecessors as Ministers will understand. I should be happy to write if it was helpful to pursue that.
Also on enforcement, I am absolutely with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott: I, too, have been shocked by the extent to which some people will go to avoid paying for their children. Having said that, I want to say that most parents want to do the right thing: they want to pay for their children and pay up, and our job is to help them to do it—but where they do not, it is right to go after them. Like the noble Baroness, I have been so impressed by the colleagues that I have met. I have visited child maintenance offices and our enforcement colleagues are doing everything that they can: they are brilliant, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that. The CMS has lots of fantastic staff and brilliant leadership, determined to keep driving for improvement, and it is really nice to hear that said, because otherwise they hear all the criticisms, as if we do not know the really good work that they do and how hard they work. There is not much more that I can say on that in the short term.
Let me try to rattle through things in my remaining four minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Stedman-Scott, asked some excellent questions about supporting parents. Noble Lords may be interested to know that we are looking at a range of new tools and guidance to support separated families, to help them make informed financial decisions and to help them choose the best option for them. These include enhancing the online calculator, by aligning it more closely with the statutory application to strengthen confidence in the estimates, and providing better ongoing support for family-based arrangements. When the reforms to abolish Direct Pay go ahead, parents will be given information to help them judge the suitability of a family-based operation, as well as on how to go ahead with the CMS if that is the way that they want to go. We are also working across government with the Ministry of Justice to look at how it is developing digital tools for post-separation contact and to make sure that it can align with what the CMS is doing, in order to support parents in making safe and sustainable family-based arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned family hubs. The family hub presence should offer universal materials and information about how to book on to services for separated families, including signposting parents to the Child Maintenance Service. The hubs are deliberately designed to be a gateway to the full range of support that families need, so every hub will connect families to debt advice, welfare support, housing support and support with the cost of living. Child maintenance officials are working really closely with DfE colleagues to identify all the opportunities to share information about the CMS through the family hubs, so that they can do that. This is a really great opportunity. Obviously, because it is for everybody, we hope that it will also reach those parents; we are really working on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, also asked what we are doing to increase confidence in the CMS. There are two things here. First, despite what we have heard here today, we need to be clear that, although there are hard cases that test the service, overall, the service is much better than it used to be and most people’s cases run reasonably smoothly. People are still applying in large numbers. In fact, there has been an increase: as of last December, we are at almost 800,000 cases, up from 640,000 just three years earlier. So large numbers of people are coming and using the service and, within that, compliance has been going up.
We are not complacent, but I do work really hard to reach out. I run surgeries for MPs. We engage with stakeholder organisations. We go out there and talk. We are doing a lot. The CMS’s modernisation programme is also doing a lot to communicate with parents and to make it easier for them to find information. It is running targeted social media campaigns, including signposting people to tools and trying to move things along. We need to get the word out there: “The CMS is there for you, and it works”.
I may have to write on the mediation voucher but, again, I am really pleased with how it is going; I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging that. The scheme is working well and has been heavily promoted.
I have only 15 seconds left. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned back-to-work employment. The Government are committed to supporting people into work; I will not go through all of that, but we are doing a huge amount there. However, survey evidence and CMS calculations suggest that the majority of paying parents are in work, so our job is to support them in this.
I am running out of time; I have only 10 seconds left. Let me simply say how grateful I am to the committee for its work and how determined I am to make this service work. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, started by saying that I care about this issue; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for acknowledging that. I absolutely do care, and I know that my whole department and the leadership of the CMS do too. We are determined to make this service the best it possibly can be; children and parents need it, and we will make it work.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, in responding briefly to the debate, I would first like to thank everybody who contributed. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience in this Room today. We made the same point about wishing to reform the system and make it better for children and parents. With that kind of background, we should be able to make progress; I hope that we might see some in years to come.
The Minister’s response was as full, open and honest as ever. I can only speak personally but I am always grateful that it is the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who has this job. This is such an important area, and I trust no one more than I trust her to try to get it right; that is the background and the amount of trust that I have in the noble Baroness’s leadership role.
Having said that, this is a really tough issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out—the committee also felt this—if you have the money and the wherewithal to go to court and have your system looked at individually, you will not suffer a lot of the things that we have been complaining about today. If you have to use the state-run system, it cannot treat you as an individual; it treats you using a formula. That is the problem that we have.
Given that those are the circumstances, all I will say is that of all the services this system needs to be the best that the state can offer, but I do not think it is. My worry about the Minister’s response is that they need to bite the bullet on this issue and go for big change. That is my gut feeling, having been a chair of this inquiry for a couple of months. I will have to reflect on whether what the Minister said—about having limited changes to the calculation and the formula, limited changes to enforcement and no movement yet on administrative liability orders—amounts to the radical change that needs to happen.
I say this from my own experience as a Minister: you can never have radical change without hurting someone. If you are going to hang around till you have an answer where no one is a loser, you will never change anything. My one word of warning is that my judgment, and I think that of the committee, is that radical change is needed. It will not be done without pain to someone, but that will be less pain than we have in the system at the moment. Having said that, I am very grateful. I wish the Minister and her team well and hope that, collectively, we can pursue this in another forum.
The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Industry and Regulators Committee The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (2nd Report, HL Paper 225, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this debate on the report The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator, which was published by the Industry and Regulators Committee in early December. As is often the case, we have to wait some time for these debates, but the issues that we raised are still very relevant.
I place on record my thanks to members of the committee and our whole team for the work that they have done. I particularly mention the noble Lord, Lord Best, who was the first person to alert us to the problems that we should be looking into as a committee. I also thank Dominic Cooper, our researcher, for the sterling work that he put in.
There is a wealth of experience in this Room. My noble friend Lord Roe will give us the insider’s view, my noble friend Lady Warwick will talk about social housing, and there is a wealth of experience from local government and elsewhere. However, we should start off this debate by remembering the 72 people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire. This coming Sunday will be the ninth anniversary of that tragedy and, as the Minister told us, remembering that is at the heart of everything we do. We have to remember the 72 people who lost their lives and those who were bereaved and who survived them. It was a very significant event.
The inquiry that followed that tragedy found that the regulatory arrangements for the construction industry were too complex and fragmented. In many cases, they allowed the industry to choose its regulator, creating a commercial incentive not to regulate too strongly. As part of efforts to ensure that such an event could not happen again, Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review recommended the establishment of a new regulatory framework to oversee building safety in higher risk buildings. Consequently, Parliament legislated, with all-party support, to create this new framework in the Building Safety Act 2022, which gave this responsibility to the Building Safety Regulator set up within the Health and Safety Executive.
The Act gave the BSR responsibility for approving safe construction of new higher risk buildings and construction work within existing higher risk buildings. This was to ensure that compliance with building regulations would be assessed by an independent regulator rather than by the complex framework that existed with local authorities or private sector building control approvers. The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator and its regulatory framework was necessary and it was welcomed quite significantly. The committee heard some evidence that the BSR was improving safety by requiring greater consideration of safe design and management by the housing industry. However, the overwhelming impression the committee got was that the BSR’s current impact is that it has caused widespread delays to both the delivery of new housing and the improvement of existing higher rise buildings, including the remuneration of dangerous cladding.
The BSR’s statutory timeframe for making building control decisions for existing buildings is eight weeks, and for new build it is 12 weeks. Its own data shows that it takes, on average, much longer than the statutory timelines, and we have heard that many applicants were waiting up to a year for very significant decisions. This has threatened the viability of new housebuilding in cities and left residents in unsafe buildings for longer than necessary. It does not make anyone safer if we fail to deliver new housing in overcrowded cities or leave residents waiting longer for remediation of their unsafe buildings. We heard from one leaseholder, Pamela Street, that residents in her building
“have quite simply had enough”,
after their application was delayed when the building was identified as needing work in 2019. Many others have had to live with uncertainty and seemingly open-ended financial commitments for work that might have to be done.
There are reasons for these delays but, whatever they are, this level of performance is entirely unacceptable. During our inquiries, the Government and the Building Safety Regulator recognised these problems and began to make practical improvements, which I will mention. The committee welcomed this. However, the BSR admitted that, even after these changes, it may fall short of meeting its statutory timeframes. This will not banish the anxiety or frustration that residents and companies are already experiencing, so I ask the Minister to update the Committee on when the Government expect the Building Safety Regulator to meet its statutory timeframes for making decisions.
We heard several reasons for these delays. Initially, the Building Safety Regulator seconded in members of multidisciplinary teams to make building control decisions, leading to delays in setting up those teams in the first place. The BSR is now increasing its in-house capacity following government investment, which is a significant and positive move. However, this sits within the broader shortage of building and fire inspectors to staff the BSR and other related organisations, such as local building control authorities and fire and rescue services. The Government have made £70 million of additional funding available to address these shortages in building safety personnel, which must be welcomed. The planned construction action plan is also welcome, but it needs to have the long-term funding necessary to increase this capacity. I hope the Minister will be willing to update the House on a regular basis about progress that can be made in this respect.
Another key issue was that the construction industry did not understand what information it needed to provide for the BSR to approve its projects. That was compounded by the Building Safety Regulator, certainly in the early days, not communicating clearly with applicants about their projects. It is unreasonable to expect applicants to meet a standard when it is not clear how it is assessed or what a successful application would look like. We heard that progress had been made during our inquiry, with the BSR beginning to provide greater guidance and increasing communication with applicants. How confident are the Government that the BSR has now given sufficient guidance to make its requirements clear?
However, not all the problems are on one side. The Building Safety Regulator has expressed concerns about the capability of the construction industry to meet its requirements, arguing that the requirements of the building regulations have not changed, only the way in which they are assessed. The BSR gave examples of the reasons why it has rejected applications, including an inability to show how buildings had been designed to avoid collapse, which sounds very basic to me, and a common issue whereby applicants’ own computer modelling showed that smoke would be pumped into fire exits rather than extracted. While the BSR must improve its own performance and provide clear guidance, it does not reflect well on the construction industry that many applications are rejected or delayed due to basic errors and an inability to evidence information on central elements of fire and structural safety. The Government have since consulted on their strategy for the built environment professions, and I hope the Minister can tell us when they will announce reforms to ensure that industry can play its full part in improving the safety of buildings.
So we have a situation where the BSR’s own processes contributed to delays and where industry complained that a significant amount of design information was required up front before construction could begin. This was a necessary change from the previous situation, where developers could decide and change critical features after construction had commenced. However, we felt that the BSR overcorrected for this problem and we welcome that it is planning to take a more staged approach to approvals, allowing construction to begin without requiring the full design of non-safety critical features. The balance has to be carefully assessed, because both factors are important.
Of course, our report is not just about new build. We heard significant frustration from leaseholders that smaller, less safety-critical works to their properties, including domestic renovations, required approval from the BSR, and that could often lead to significant delays and a significant increase in the costs of projects. It also tied up in-demand safety professionals on more minor works. So we called upon the Government to remove less safety-critical works from the BSR approval process or to provide a more streamlined approach to them. The Government are consulting on taking a more proportionate approach to works inside individual flats and small-scale works in communal areas, such as the replacement of fire doors, but keeping them within the BSR framework. That would be welcome, and we are hoping that the Government can move swiftly to implement those proposals.
I turn to the products involved. The use of combustible cladding and insulation at Grenfell Tower shows that the quality of construction products is critical to the safety of a building, but the regulation of construction products is patchy and fragmented. The Government have consulted on their initial proposals for improving construction product regulation. We were pleased at that and support it, particularly the introduction of a generalised safety requirement to ensure that all products are covered by at least some regulation. It is urgent that people can trust the materials that their buildings are made of. Again, I hope the Minister can update us on when the Government will take these plans forward.
The Government have taken action, changing the leadership of the BSR, including by installing my noble friend Lord Roe, and we welcome that. The Government have also provided additional investment in BSR staffing and removed it from the Health and Safety Executive to set it up as a stand-alone agency, which are steps in the right direction. This is a move toward introducing a single construction regulator, as recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. We welcome this as it will provide greater clarity and consistency in the regulation of the industry, but there is still a lot to do. The Sunday Times said yesterday that there are still over 400,000 people living in flats with fire risk and that only 21% to 26% of buildings known or estimated to have unsafe cladding have actually been fixed. So a start has been made but further action has to be taken, and it is planned in a number of the areas that we have raised. We welcome that but we think there is still a long way to go to avoid another tragedy happening.
Moreover, and this point is very important, without further action from the Government and indeed from the BSR, there is little chance that the Government will be able to meet their target to build new homes and to remove dangerous cladding, and a failure to meet either of those challenges will leave people living in unsafe conditions for longer. I know that the Minister is engaged and aware of these problems, and we welcome the fact that some action has already been taken during the time since our report was published, but we have to keep on top of this issue because it is still a serious problem that many people are facing. I beg to move that the report be considered.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow our erstwhile chair of the Industry and Regulators Committee. I begin by declaring my interest as a member of that committee.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her excellent chairing of both the committee as a whole and this inquiry; I have to be careful about how much I say we miss her because her successor, who is also doing an excellent job, is sitting just beside her. I shall try very hard not to repeat the noble Baroness’s excellent, clear and comprehensive introduction, which really set out the content of the committee’s report, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I also thank the clerk and the staff who worked so hard on producing this report and who continue to support the committee so well.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just said, the Building Safety Regulator was created as a direct result of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower nine years ago. It was a clearly necessary and welcome step, and it demonstrated a clear regulatory gap that had absolutely tragic consequences. However, this time last year, when we as a committee started to investigate the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, it was also clear that the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry had not been implemented very well at all.
That was causing material harm in and of itself. Remediation was nowhere near on track. Unsafe buildings remained unsafe—and, sadly, still remain so today. Tenants are stuck, unable to move on with their lives, and unable to do basic DIY. Frankly, they are still scared, too. So it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation in terms of remediation, as well as a real handbrake on development in a country that desperately needs new housing. That is something with which all of us on all sides agree, as does everyone else in the country—except, sadly, when it actually involves each of our local areas, but that is a different issue.
We had a regulator that was set up with the best possible intent and with genuine cross-party support but was simply failing in its job. In our political process, when we debate Select Committee reports, even though it takes quite a long time to get here, as the noble Baroness said, my experience is that, often, nothing much has changed. Even though it might be a year since it came out, we can pick up the report and carry on the debate as we have done. This is an unusual instance where that is not the case and where I need to congratulate the Government on acting. I wait, as I suspect others do, to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Roe, for a proper, up-to-the-minute update on the performance of the regulator, but, based on a basic measure of the number of emails I have received from organisations lobbying in this space, as compared to the number of emails I received this time last year when we initiated the inquiry, I have to conclude that an awful lot of the noise has died down, which suggests that there is real movement and improvement. That is something we should mark.
I will try hard in the rest of my speech not to go back over what the noble Baroness has just set out but to look forward. First, it is clear that a beginning has been made. It is hugely tempting—just as when the regulator was first set up—to assume that, once you have said it, it exists. An awful lot of good things have started, but they need to finish. I echo the noble Baroness’s question on when the Building Safety Regulator will meet its operational KPIs. It is definitely improving, but when it meet them? When will the Government bring forward the necessary changes in legislation to enable some of the high-volume, low-risk work to be moved out of the scope of the BSR so that it can focus on where it will really make a difference? When will we know what the path to create a single construction regulator will look like? That is where I would really like to focus: on the lessons learned. The Government undoubtedly embarked on creating a new, bigger regulator, because this is a tale of creating a regulator not going very well at all.
I have tried to pull out the big lessons that I would like us to learn. The first is that it was clear that culture change was, and still is, needed in this industry. However, the approach taken was to assume that that culture change can be created without the regulator engaging directly with the industry at all: “The industry can’t be trusted, so we’re not going to engage with it”. That does not create culture change. Culture change is created by grown-up, adult discussions with a regulator that retains its independence but has the courage and capability to talk to the industry; I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Roe, and his team have started but, my goodness, we must not forget that. After you have seen the sort of regulatory failures that were in the construction industry, it is very easy to assume that the same mistakes will be repeated, but you need active engagement between the regulator and the industry to create change.
Secondly, the operational performance of the regulator really does matter. The moment in the inquiry that depressed me most was when we took evidence from the then leaders of the Building Safety Regulator. They told us not only that they were missing their operational KPIs by a very long way but that, even with their best endeavours, in several months’ time, they might get to missing them by only a few weeks. That is just not good enough. If we want regulators to perform, we in Parliament and the Government need to hold them to account for delivering their operational performance. This means that we need to think very carefully about what those KPIs are because, if they get so accustomed to missing them that it is okay to say in Parliament, “Never mind, we’ll get better but we won’t actually get there”, we have a real problem.
My third learning is that, if you are going to create a new regulator, you must resource it properly. The unintended consequences of great intentions that are poorly resourced are worse than not doing anything at all. If we are going to set up a single construction regulator, we have to do it properly and set targets with a line of sight to the resources so that we are capable of meeting them. I talk about a line of sight to the resources. It requires us to think about not just the money but the skills. One of the biggest problems that the BSR faced was the lack of a supply chain of people with the required skills to join its multidisciplinary teams. There is a role for the Government in thinking through the end-to-end supply chain of talent and capability to meet these standards.
Finally, there are unintended consequences of regulation. I am certain that, four or five years ago, when they were setting up the BSR, officials tried to work this through in advance, but, no matter how hard they tried, it quickly became obvious that the BSR was not fit for purpose. This means that you need a very rapid review after you have started the journey of building a new regulator. If we as a country are about to embark on setting up a single construction regulator, will the Government commit to a review within 12 months of it being set up?
I would like to think that the committee of which I am a proud member did an outstanding job in writing this report, but I do not think that it was actually that difficult: it was pretty obvious what was wrong, and most people already knew that. We could have got to grips with those changes earlier if we had had a government-led review within 12 months of the BSR beginning. Everyone would have said the same things, and we would have had a head start on trying to fix the problems. By definition, I do not know what the unintended consequences of setting up a single construction regulator will be, but I am sure that there will be some, so I urge the Government to set up that rapid review process so that they can catch things before they do too much harm.
I have nearly come to the end; I promised that I would not speak for too long. This might feel like minutiae but we are living in a world where getting the balance between enabling the market to solve some of our fundamental problems and protecting our citizens from dreadful harms, of which this is a great example, shows that the minutiae of setting up a regulator properly can make or break some big things in this country. Sadly, when the BSR was set up, we did not get that right. We must learn from those mistakes.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I too was delighted to be a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee that produced this report. I also thank the clerk and the team who looked after us. They did an absolutely brilliant job. What we discovered six months ago has been brilliantly explained by our esteemed then chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. I would just like to summarise our findings.
First, the ghastly Grenfell Tower tragedy revealed the long-overdue need for expert, decisive regulation for building safety. Secondly, the Government’s response in establishing the Building Safety Regulator had floundered and the BSR urgently needed to improve its performance. Thirdly, the Government were seized of the urgency of this situation and, not least with the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, as the new BSR chair—I am delighted to see him here—there were important signs of real progress in clearing the backlog and achieving faster and more effective regulation. I am sure we will hear more of this progress tonight.
This story is not one of a need for deregulation. No one would wish us to return to a system that allowed dangerous practices across the construction industry. Rather, it is about speedy and effective regulation. The BSR in its initial form was opaque in its requirements and irresponsibly slow in its decision-making. The new-look BSR is not about deregulation but about better regulation, as I am sure this debate will make clear.
I would like to raise the related issue of regulation of construction products, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has touched on. The BSR is not directly responsible for this. The task falls to the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the OPSS, located within the Department for Business and Trade, which has the duty of protecting
“people and places from product-related harm”.
Dame Judith Hackitt’s 2017 review had found the process for testing and certifying products for use in construction is
“disjointed, confusing, unhelpful, and lacks any sort of transparency”.
It is clearly impossible for the BSR to make buildings safe if the products being used are unsafe. In one of our debates on the Grenfell disaster, the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, told us how the tiles for cladding were used as the best fuel for bonfires on construction sites, with those working in construction entirely familiar with just how inflammable—and therefore dangerous—these products could be. Yet there they were on the face of the tallest buildings, which were the least likely to cope with a serious fire.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s phase 2 report, published last September, argued that there was systemic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the cladding panels and insulation products as used on the building. The phase 2 report suggested enhanced arrangements for regulating construction products. Samantha Dixon, the Minister for Building Safety, told our committee that the plans to establish a single construction regulator would include greater regulation of construction products. Could the Minister update us on progress in achieving a new regime for regulating construction products?
There was good news last summer in the extension of government support to cover the remediation costs of social rented homes in buildings over 11 metres. The cost is being largely covered by the original builders that are still in business and by the building safety levy. Are there now plans to go further and compensate occupiers for safety measures in buildings that are less than 11 metres high but which have life-critical safety defects, as certified by qualified fire engineers? Can we expect support for the unfortunate shared owners and leaseholders, some still facing truly ruinous bills, in these less tall but just as unsafe homes? An update from the Minister would be much appreciated.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for the opportunity to speak in this debate and for the invaluable work of the committee when she was its chair. I say that on behalf of the regulator; I declare an interest as its chair. The report was enormously important and a very useful lever to drive forward what has been a fundamental process of change. Since sitting in front of the committee—perhaps I would say this—we as a regulator have undergone a fundamental process of change in just about every area of operation, including culture. I will speak to that to provide some reassurance on these well-placed questions and concerns.
I acknowledge that the problems that the noble Baroness spoke to in opening were entirely real. I do not intend to debate that. Last July, I was given a job to do because of those problems and because the Government had recognised that there was certainly a job to be done to improve the regulator. When I took over the regulator, which was still within the HSE at that point, there was a backlog of around 33,000 homes stuck in the application pipeline. I think it is fair to say that there had been a disproportionate impact on housing starts in London. Those two things are undeniable and inexcusable in the context of a regulator that should perhaps have paid more due regard to proportionality and the duties of a regulator to understand its economic impact.
I am in violent agreement with the position stated by all previous speakers that, basically, not having a home does not make you safer. We have to be an enabling regulator because there is a dire need for housing in this country. As someone who, in a previous life, ran one of the largest emergency services in the world, I can tell the Committee that poor access to housing creates as great a danger as living in dangerous housing. I do not say that hypothetically: it is there in the statistics. People very often die, sadly, in crowded and inappropriately converted accommodation. I agree with all of that.
In that spirit, I draw the Committee’s attention to some of the data which shows that there has been a sustained change at the regulator, particularly concerning new builds. The committee provided us with some very well-made challenges. The first was that there was a lack of transparency. We now publish data monthly which shows both the trajectory of change and the remaining challenges. I will come to some of those. We do that openly and in good faith, and we provide a detailed narrative alongside it. If noble Lords go on to the BSR or MHCLG web pages, they will see how things have been improving, month by month.
When I sat in front of the committee, there was a 30% approval rate for applications, which spoke to the lack of available guidance and the confusion that surrounded the regulations. It probably said something about the relationship between the industry and the regulator—a lack of communication, mutual respect and understanding that, in the end, the construction sector will deliver the homes and it is our job to hold it to account, enable it and pull standards up. The average approval rate across all parts of the BSR system is now sitting at more than 75%. I do not believe that that is because we have gone soft; it is because we have helped drive standards upwards. That is above 75% across every single part of the system.
I turn to the innovation unit, as it is termed—it is actually just the centralised model, which previous speakers talked about—where we have taken control of our own MDTs and are directing them more assertively. In the past month, 90% of all decisions delivered by the innovation unit were approvals, whereas previously we were invalidating applications, sometimes at the six-month point, because they were missing documents or there was something not quite right in the way the application was put in. It was completely inappropriate to leave people delayed in that way. We are now making determinations within a week for invalid—that is, missing—parts of an application process.
In London last month, 100% of all applications across 19 case decisions were approvals. In remediation, the approval rate is up to 79% on average, and we are motoring through them now. Across all categories, as I have said, we are up to 75%. More than 10,000 housing units were approved in the past 12 weeks. When I sat in front of the committee, the median for a determination was 43 weeks nationally and 48 in London. Obviously, that speaks to even greater delays at the wrong end of that—people who had put in entirely valid applications but had been waiting and waiting. The median approval time is now down to 22 weeks.
I would like to talk about the KPIs at some point within the next nine minutes. There is a principal point here about how those KPIs were first come to and whether, in the opinion of both the industry and the regulator, they would ever be achievable. If you were to sit with some of the CEOs of the major constructors in this country, they would tell you that they do not need me, along with my colleagues, to rush to those 12 weeks. I suggest that it might force some illogical, cliff-edge-style regulatory decisions. I will come back to that.
We are down to a 22-week median approval time now. It could be lower, I think around 15 to 18 weeks, depending on the complexity of an application. Do not forget that our regulatory remit is everything from a single 12-storey tower block right through to the Shard. As one could imagine, it is highly unlikely that you would reach a decision on the Shard in 12 weeks. We have schemes of very significant complexity and scale—multi-tower schemes or those of more than a thousand housing units—alongside those single blocks. For single blocks, we could probably get close to 12 weeks, but I would argue that we would not be doing anyone any favours to rush towards 12 weeks for the larger and more complex schemes, and that is why the median time is at 22 weeks: there is a balance between approval, rejection and the amount of time.
The reason that it is 22 now is that we are working with developers on a weekly basis to guide them, to help pull up the standards of design and to challenge where necessary. We are doing that in a transparent and recorded way, but in an environment of positive communication. I would like to see the time come down, but I would be a bit cautious about suggesting a blind rush to a KPI that was designed by people who perhaps had not fully understood how hard it is to design something of that scale and complexity in advance. Noble Lords do not have to take just my word for that; the industry would probably say the same thing. It really wants regulatory certainty, and that is what we have given it, because that 22-week median has held solid for months now. I would like to see it come down further. We need to come back to some stuff around engineering design decisions, which I will describe in a minute, because they will help us get it down, particularly for complex case applications.
Noble Lords were absolutely right about guidance. We are bang to rights. If people are not told what to bring, how on earth could they be expected to make a good application? The guidance out there now is significant, considerable and, more importantly, co-authored with the industry. To go back to the principle, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is absolutely right: we want people who are experts in building buildings, who are in the industry—whatever story might have been told in public—to improve it. My experience is that the Construction Leadership Council led by Mark Reynolds is owed a great deal of thanks for helping us to improve as a regulator. Working with the CLC and the industry to produce industry-relevant guidance based on best engineering practice has helped to drive that approval rate up, because people are now coming into the application process understanding what we need and what best practice looks like. That has been from a joint effort with industry, and the results speak for themselves.
There was an absence of good guidance in the remediation space, where there are some complexities, particularly around facade engineering and the level of expertise available in the country. That has radically shifted again and we have a 79% approval rate now because—again, to its credit—the industry has worked hard with the regulator to produce guidance and videos. There will be more on that by 22 June, as we start to ramp up our remediation programme.
Just for information, I shall talk about things that have worked. One is centralising teams—getting control of MDTs. I talked about picking a football team where you did not know what pitch you were playing on or who was on your team. That was the old model, and that has gone. We do not do any of the franchise MDT work anymore in any part of our systems. Either it is delivered through a centralised team process where we control it—that is, we have direct control of fire engineers, structural engineers, geospatial and building control specialists—or we have private sector contracts with the big engineering companies where we batch out applications under very strict regulatory oversight, so we control what goes in, and we have oversight of the information that those engineering concerns are taking in and making determinations on. At the end of the day, the legal decision has to lie with the regulator. Our experience is that that has provided great contingency and additional capacity that, again, brings times down.
Obviously the biggest improvement has been in the new-build space, and what we have done there has to be repeated in remediation. We are beginning to see that now but, frankly, it took us up until just after Christmas to clear the backlog in new build, and then we turned our gaze to remediation, but we are now starting to see that accelerate. That is good because, with credit to the Minister and the department, we are now seeing real pressure being brought to bear, both through the grant system and in the relationship with developers through the developer contract, to speed up applications into the process. We are seeing a considerable uptick in the number of applications coming into the remediation process. We have to keep pace with that, and my assurance to the Committee is that we will.
We have been recruiting at pace and are building new contracts at pace with big engineering firms to focus specifically on remediation. We now have a full-time centralised team fully established inside the remediation space for applications. They have their first 50 applications now as a new unit and are working their way through. So, even in the context of some of the problems that previous speakers have described, we had started improving anyway just by improving communication, relationships, guidance process and general grip. Now that we are resourcing up, I think that again we will continue to see an improving trajectory.
On problems within categories A and B, we will come back to the principles around refurbishment in those categories. I apologise—I am conscious that I am running out of time, so I will wrap up as quickly as possible.
I have a dedicated NHS team. It was inexcusable to me that we were holding up hospital refurbishment and improvements. We have broadly dealt with that by just establishing a dedicated NHS team, which is probably worth knowing about. Probably, like my colleague the Minister, I am measuring the success of that by the far more limited emails that I now get in my inbox directly from the CEOs of NHS trusts.
If the Committee might indulge me going a minute over my time, I would like to talk about the remaining challenges, because it is worth being honest with noble Lords. On the remaining challenges, we are now doing what we should do as a regulator, because we have dealt with the bureaucratic failures. We are not refusing to reply to emails; now we are meeting developers weekly. We have a dedicated account management function that will be meeting all the big developers and the majority of SMEs on a weekly and monthly basis to problem-solve. That is all great, but we have realised that we need better industry-wide benchmarks, commonly understood with the regulator, about engineering principles. As much as I love lawyers and engineers, if you put the two in a room, they will have a different opinion, whether on our side, on the applicant’s side or even within either entity. That is what we are finding, and it is extending determination times, so we are doing something about it. We have appointed independent chairs of the statutory committees, and we have set up internal panels to allow for third-party challenge.
We are dealing with some of the big issues—for example, around structural engineering calculations and design ideologies—that are really bothering the industry at the moment. We need to have a reset in the back regime. I would be happy to come back to the Committee or to report in future debates on what we are doing there, but that is imminent, because that system still is not functioning as we would want it and we want to turn it to a risk-based inspection programme, to put it broadly, rather than calling them all in, which is what we do at the moment and places an undue burden.
I am grateful to the Minister and the department for supporting us in rationalising the category A and B refurbishment regime, and we are a long way down that road now. I expect to see the results of that coming through consultation, and therefore a change to our operations. I am sorry for the rush through; I probably could have said more about change, but I hope it has given the Committee a sense of what we have been doing that is evidenced in the numbers, rather than just empty promises. I would welcome the opportunity to speak again as we drive further change forward.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, whom we know has unparalleled expertise of not just the regulator but the service, in defence of safety and security in London. I declare that I am a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, but I joined after this report was published. Nevertheless, I manage a residential block of flats in Norwich.
Self-evidently, a building should be sufficiently safe for not just residents and occupiers but visitors, tenants and everybody else. We have all seen the consequences when things go wrong. When I was a member of the fire service pension scheme, we had a meeting on the morning of the Grenfell fire in the headquarters of the London Fire Brigade. None of us really knew the gravity of what was unfurling before us; those horrors came later. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has given us the chronology, so I will not detain the Committee with it.
I have no wish to criticise the regulator or anybody who works within it. They have had to get going under the glare of publicity. There was the move from the HSE to Marsham Street; the regulations had to be revised; delays were inevitable and staffing changed. Let us not rehearse all the difficulties. Our challenge is to look forward and get these issues fixed in a proportionate manner so that we can get Britain building again.
Back in about 2019, I sat in the office of the then Secretary of State when the Building Safety Act 2022 was being mooted. He made a powerful observation that stuck with me: some felt that the Act, if implemented, could in some way prevent fire. That misdirection by some was a delusion, because fires will happen. The first purpose of the Building Safety Act should be to enable people to get out quickly. Clearly, there are ways to prevent fire, slow its spread, compartmentalise and raise the alarm in the event of a conflagration. Nobody wants to see a building burn, but too often the regulations that have flowed from the Act have placed too great a focus on the purist approach to preserving a building’s fabric rather than saving lives. We must restate the balance between protecting the building and getting people out more quickly.
The regulations have spawned a huge amount of work. Approaches have inevitably created a bureaucratic monster, especially for older buildings. I think it is fair to say that, historically, there have been unrealistic assessments of risk—blind to cost and burdened by process delays—which have stymied desirable works while making homes worthless in the meantime. Counterintuitively, in some cases they have reduced safety, with refurbishments abandoned, increased risks to residents and the open-ended costs of waking watches and unsellable homes. Success was never meant to be like this.
Obviously we need to focus on the highest-risk buildings—those that are hardest to get out of—but this bureaucratic mission creep has blighted otherwise safe buildings. The fault is not necessarily with the regulator, the builders, the landlords or whoever is directly involved with a premises. Other actors have contributed to the misdirection that has blighted buildings and stalled lives. The mission creep has led to many cases of 11-metre buildings, for example, which are much safer and easier to get out of—and in which, if fires occur, they are much easier to fight—being needlessly tainted. A practical example of this misdirection sees uninformed conveyancers, egged on by mortgage providers, estate agents, valuation surveyors and insurers, demanding unnecessary EWS1 inspections at a specimen cost of £25,000 each, because inevitably intrusive investigations—with scaffolding and making good—will be required. Legally unnecessary, these EWS1s then need to be repeated every five years. It is pointless and counterproductive, and diverts from the risks of addressing the needs of the really high-rise, high-risk buildings.
I am not making the case to ignore unsafe buildings, but excessive delays over specification and costs are keeping people in unimproved buildings that could be made safe for longer, so that they cannot move; it takes too long to buy a home and sales fall through. Housebuilding itself has collapsed in London and, because what happens in London—where there is a disproportionate number of high-rise buildings—follows elsewhere, we are just gumming up the national market. That is why it is important to get this right and to get a grip, not least because we will see perverse consequences if we make it all too difficult for freeholders to do the right thing, especially if the regulatory costs exceed the costs of doing the work. They will just collapse their firms, leaving the leaseholders—those least likely and able to afford it—holding the baby.
Molior reports that new starts in London developments have fallen from a peak of 33,774 in 2015 to just 5,547 in the first quarter of 2026. Getting this wrong in a city that houses 10 million people is never going to grow the economy at the rate we need to.
How do we improve? I am grateful to Berkeley Homes for telling me that, within the regulator, we need to streamline the move from gateway 2 to gateway 3 as an application moves from idea to reality, and we need case officers to be passported through on the same application. Sometimes—we have heard the reasons why—case officers change, with their different views, interpretations or prejudices, which adds to delays, risks and costs. It would be helpful if we fixed the reinvention of the wheel, where lessons learned from one application cannot be passported to another similar development of a common design.
We should celebrate innovation, but we must turn against the notion that anything new is intrinsically high risk and is tipped into the lottery of the bucket of most complex cases. Such Ludditism will never get roofs over our heads. We need to recognise that the building levy, which is £90 per square metre in Fulham, is killing building for little purpose save to sustain the bureaucracy. It is not entirely clear how, in the case of Fulham, which is a high-value area, that figure was calculated in the first place. Elsewhere, the surveyors, mortgage providers, conveyancers and the rest need to stop demanding legally unnecessary tickets with impossible burdens of proof that are collapsing sales and trapping people in their own homes.
It would be churlish if we did not recognise the enormous strides that have been taken with the move from the Health and Safety Executive to Marsham Street, but we need to recognise that we have to get better—from the 22 weeks we have heard about down to the 12-week deadline, and so forth. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Roe, explained that, in order to increase confidence, which is really important, regular data releases are needed to show progress. It is important to show that trajectory; it will get developers off the pot and starting building, which will in turn get the economy moving. Something as simple as that is so welcome.
My main point is to restate the purpose of the regulator and the regulations, which is to ensure that, if a fire happens, we get people out quickly. Creating a counsel of perfection, where every single minor detail is fettled to the nth degree regardless of cost, is not helping either the system for new builds or, more particularly, older buildings that are crying out for refurbishment. Unless we get this balance right, especially in our capital city, we will not build new homes and people will not be able to get on with their lives.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on her comprehensive and forensic introduction to this report. I wanted to speak in this debate because the role of the regulator is crucial in delivering the Government’s aim of urgently building more homes and in resolving one of the most intractable social problems that the country faces: the lack of safe, healthy, affordable homes for everyone.
Of course, it is not just new homes that we should be concerned about. The Grenfell Tower tragedy put into stark relief the problems we face with existing stock. It is worth reminding ourselves that most housing stock is already ageing. Indeed, the majority of our homes are already more than 60 years old. It is a problem that has exercised all parties when in government. The previous Government set up the BSR following the Grenfell fire to improve the regulation of building safety standards. Grenfell Tower was built 50 years ago, and it was its refurbishment, and the materials and products used, that came under close scrutiny.
The Select Committee’s report is a timely review of whether the BSR has delivered on its intentions. Its findings make for sombre reading; it was very helpful to hear about the salutary other side of the argument, if you like, in my noble friend Lord Roe’s much more upbeat report on the progress made so far. The committee found that the BSR took far too long to make decisions on construction projects; that is still a problem, I think. There were also issues around staffing and skills, poor communication, a lack of high standards in some parts of the building industry and inefficient BSR processes.
My emphasis is on social homes, the majority of which are built by housing associations. The Select Committee heard from housing associations about how the BSR’s delays and a lack of clarity and communication are holding up vital safety work. I know that housing associations have been keenly focused on the safety of their residents and are doing everything they can to meet the deadlines in the Joint Plan to Accelerate Remediation of Social Housing, so it has been very frustrating that the BSR’s regulatory framework is having such a direct impact on enabling safer homes and on the delivery of new homes. The Government’s own data shows that the social housing sector has been completing works at around twice the rate of the private sector, so it is vital that these delays are resolved. I want to add here, though, that the collaborative approach from government—as well as the engagement work of the National Housing Federation to ensure that housing associations were able to feed into the joint plan’s development in order to secure agreed timelines—is an excellent example of the strong partnerships that we need to make buildings safe.
The report makes some powerful recommendations to resolve these issues. Its recommendations were welcomed by the Government, who have already put in train changes that have produced clear improvements in the BSR’s performance; my noble friend Lord Roe echoed that. There is no doubt that recent progress has been made. Since my noble friend Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley took over the leadership of the regulator, implementing new innovation units for both types of applications and recruiting more staff to review cases, there have been significant improvements in decision-making times. These welcome changes will ensure that housing associations can remediate and build at a faster pace, securing safer homes and the new social and affordable homes that we desperately need. Even more progress will be made following the publication of the guidance for applicants on good submissions to the regulator, which should give further clarity and reduce rejections. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some detail on when this will be published.
Collaboration between the BSR and housing associations is only growing stronger through these new initiatives. I know that the social housing sector is committed to continuing to work with the regulator on not only delivering remediation but resolving other safety risks, including transfer slabs and large-panel system buildings, to ensure that every single one of their residents feels safe in their own home.
I welcome this report. It is vital that we have a robust and proportional regulator to ensure that everyone in the country lives in a safe home. The report sets out very clear and practical recommendations on how to achieve this. The Government have welcomed them and have already taken action to improve the performance of the BSR. I hope that, in her response, the Minister can give us greater detail on any further initiatives that may follow.
There are two areas about which I remain concerned. One is leaseholders in high-rise buildings—the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, referred to this in her remarks—in terms of the remediation of dangerous cladding and other safety issues, in addition to financial uncertainty. All of these issues are compounded by the fact that leaseholders are already facing significant regulatory costs to examine and resolve safety issues for which they bear little or no responsibility. In his role as chair, my noble friend Lord Roe again gave us a much more reassuring picture, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an update on where precisely we are on high-rise buildings.
As I said earlier, one of the main causes of the Grenfell fire was its cladding, which is of course a building product. The committee questioned the BSR about the product testing regime and the fact that enforcement of the regulations has been almost non-existent. The noble Lord, Lord Best, also made this point. That was a very low bar indeed for the BSR to improve on. In reading the evidence, I was concerned that the BSR seemed to rely on a “nudge” approach, which it hoped would raise awareness and “ripple out”. I did not find that very convincing, and the level of enforcement action that is taking place was not clear from the report. I hope that the Minister can tell us what progress has been made in developing a rather more rigorous approach.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of H4Life and as a partner in Quoin Partners, which represents the building development industry. I very much welcome this report; it is really an excellent piece of work. I also welcome the Government’s initial response to the report. I welcome, too, the work that my noble friend Lord Roe has done since he took up his role as chair of the Building Safety Regulator. He has clearly had a significant impact in that new position.
I do not have the knowledge that some have, having not followed this report all the way through the committee, but I wanted to talk a little about my own journey to the Building Safety Regulator, which started on 3 July 2009, when six people died in a fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell. I was the leader of the opposition group in Southwark at that time. It was a dreadful evening, and a dreadful period in Southwark’s history. Lakanal was a 14-story council-owned block, which had recently undergone major repairs. What happened at Lakanal was that a fire broke out in a television set and spread through the exterior cladding panels. It also went through voids that should have been protecting residents in the block, but which had been compromised during recent works, with holes being drilled and new pipes being inserted. The stay-put policy of the London Fire Brigade at that time, which was followed that night in Lakanal, was found to be wanting, because people were not safe—they did not have the 45-minute or hour-long protection that they should have had in their homes on that night. It is appalling to think of the six residents who died because they stayed put in their flats.
That was an incident that scarred Southwark. The 2013 inquest made recommendations. The coroner sent a rule 43 letter to the Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, as he now is. But while Southwark embarked on a significant number of fire safety works, spending £70 million on our blocks in the aftermath of Lakanal, that was not the story nationwide. What breaks my heart is that some of the lessons from Lakanal were clearly not learned by the time of Grenfell. If lessons had been learned about exterior cladding, the compromising of the integrity of the building by those works and about the stay-put policy, about which my noble friend Lord Roe, has spoken so eloquently in the past, maybe the result would have been different.
However, with such a severe loss of life, the reaction from government and society to the Grenfell Tower fire was significant, unlike with Lakanal. We have talked about Dame Judith Hackitt’s inquiry from May 2018, which made so many important recommendations and brought about the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator. I remember going to a presentation that Dame Judith gave about the impact of her report and thinking that it would have quite an impact on the skyline of London if it was followed through. Suddenly, we were talking about having a different regime for buildings of 18 metres and below and for those above that height. I do not think that that was a point that the industry necessarily picked up on at that time, in 2018 and 2019; it did not recognise that this was going to mean a very different approach.
On my next contact with the Building Safety Regulator, I was particularly impressed by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding; she perfectly captured the problems that we saw with the creation of that regulator. I saw that, alarmingly, during a presentation at the Local Government Association conference in July 2023. This was before the Building Safety Regulator had done a thing—it was being created. I went along and heard some description, and I suppose we knew that these descriptions were going to come about post Hackitt, but they started talking about “higher risk buildings” in new-build terms. Who wants to go and live in a higher risk building? I thought, “This is going to have an impact”, and indeed some of the terminology we have used has had an impact on people’s desire to live in new builds that are described as high risk, which has had a knock on effect on the mortgage market.
The most alarming thing in that presentation at the LGA conference was representatives from the Building Safety Regulator saying, “Well, we’ve got a target of 13 weeks”—I thought it was 13 weeks but actually it might be 12—“but I can tell you now that we’re not going to meet it”. I thought, “This is odd. How can you be a regulator that hasn’t even started work yet but you’re telling the world that you’re not going to meet the targets that you have set?” The only interpretation that I could put on it was that if they were saying they were not going to meet 13 weeks then it was going to be 26 weeks or even longer, and that is how reality has played out. That comes about from the points that my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talked about: not properly resourcing the Building Safety Regulator at the start set it up to fail. As the noble Baroness said, that is a lesson that must be learned and taken away from this experience.
I would say that no builder or developer I have ever met wants to build an unsafe building; I think we can accept that. They want to be cost effective but they do not want to build an unsafe building. However, with the BSR we have created an overly bureaucratic regime. It is costly and has been time consuming. I have talked about the anticipated missed deadlines; they have come true, and we know that it has taken a year, if not longer, for some applications to pass through the BSR process.
There have also been some incredibly perverse results. I learned about a building of 100 new apartments in London that was complete and which waited for at least a year to be signed off by the Building Safety Regulator. Even though people had paid for the apartments because they were now complete, they had not been signed off so they could not be occupied. This is a crazy dystopian world that we have entered, where the BSR is, essentially preventing people from moving into completed buildings.
As everyone has observed, the BSR has contributed to a significant reduction in house building in London at a time when we need to be building more, not less. Someone said we need to ensure that it is not complex and confusing. I think the BSR is complex and confusing in the way that it operates at the moment.
I welcome what my noble friend Lord Roe has talked about today. I hear what he says about speed, and it will help the industry if the BSR regularly publishes its performance tables, because that will begin to send out a message about the regulator’s effectiveness. However, consistency is as important, and there is a massive complaint at the moment that I hear about consistency of decision-making. The point has been made already: if you have one building that goes through the BSR process and an identical building is then proposed next door or nearby, that one still has to go through the entire process. There does not seem to be any way of short-circuiting that, although maybe my noble friend will correct me afterwards. Surely, if one building has been signed off for safety, something that is identical could also be. Then there is the issue of fire doors that are accepted as safe by one part of the BSR but not accepted as safe by another, so a stand-off takes place between the developer and the BSR about whether those fire doors are safe or not. Consistency seems to me to be hugely important in how the BSR performs.
I want to talk about how I became interested in this issue and the lessons from Lakanal House. We need to achieve something speedy, effective and consistent from the Building Safety Regulator, so I ask the Minister for her observations on how we can ensure that it is delivering that speed, effectiveness and consistency. I would hugely welcome her comments on that.
We know that the performance of the BSR has had an adverse impact on the building industry. I have talked about the impact of people being afraid to get involved in higher-risk buildings. It has undoubtedly had an impact, because of the uncertainty of timing, on investment into London: investors cannot just put money forward without knowing when a building might be signed off; they need to know that there is a realistic prospect of deadlines being met. I take heart from what the noble Lord, Lord Roe, said, but there are still issues to be addressed.
There are undoubtedly some things about the state of the building industry in London and across the country that are outside our control, such as world events and other financial considerations, but the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is within our control. It is certainly within the control of the noble Lord, Lord Roe, more than it is of most of us. This is something on which we should bear down so that, as others have talked about, we can give confidence to the industry and to housebuilders to get the new homes built that we so desperately need.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. It is a delight to follow so many excellent speakers, such as not only the noble Lord, Lord Roe, but the noble Lord, Lord John, given his experience of Southwark. I also give my thanks to the committee and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their excellent work and this very helpful and useful report before us.
This is a subject of real importance; it goes to the heart of two of the most pressing challenges that we face: ensuring that buildings are safe for those who live in them and ensuring that we can actually build the buildings that we need for our communities and people. There was a very interesting comment from the noble Lord, Lord Roe, that one of his big concerns is not just the safety of buildings but having safe buildings available for fire staff in London.
The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator was one of the most significant reforms introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022, by the previous Conservative Government, in response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. That Act was necessary and it was a serious attempt to restore confidence in the system of building control to strengthen accountability across the construction sector and to ensure that the failures that led to Grenfell could never be repeated.
We should be clear about why reform was needed: the Grenfell Tower fire, now almost nine years ago, led to the loss of 72 lives. Beneath that was the exposure of profound, long-standing failures in regulation, oversight and professional competence, as others have mentioned. That subsequent inquiry identified that the regulatory system had not kept pace with risk, a culture in parts of the industry where fire safety was not given sufficient weight and deeply concerning misconduct by some manufacturers of construction products.
In that context, the direction of travel set by the Building Safety Act was right: stronger regulation of higher-risk buildings, clearer responsibilities and a more robust system of oversight were all necessary reforms. However, as the committee’s report makes clear, the effectiveness of the system now depends on its operation in practice. It is one thing to design a regulatory framework; it is an entirely different thing to make sure that it operates well in practice. As the committee suggests, in its early operation, the Building Safety Regulator faced a number of challenges in its performance. I am delighted to hear in the update from the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, that its performance is improving substantially and that a number of the recommendations that are in the report are, in effect, being taken forward and acted upon, but there is more to do. I will concentrate on some of that, but I recognise that the regulator is part of the way along that journey.
Importantly, there have been delays in decision-making, uncertainty among applicants about what information is required at different stages, inconsistent communication, and a shortage of suitably qualified inspectors and fire safety professionals. Building safety is a shared responsibility: a regulator cannot succeed without a competent and responsive industry and, equally, the industry cannot succeed without a regulator that is clear, proportionate and efficient in its decision-making. I am pleased that other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of culture and of working with the industry and not being entirely separate.
As leader of Central Bedfordshire, I saw directly the challenges of delivering housing, regeneration and infrastructure within an increasingly complex regulatory environment. Local authorities sit at the intersection of these systems. We work with the developers, housing associations, utilities and regulators. What matters most in practice is not simply the existence of regulation but that it is clear, predictable and capable of being navigated without unnecessary delay. Where that clarity exists, delivery can proceed at pace. Where it does not, even well-intentioned policy can become a barrier to progress.
If we are to build the homes this country needs, we cannot look at building safety regulation in isolation. We must consider how it interacts with practical realities. How can we ensure those high standards ensure the use of safe materials but deliver decisions in a timely and predictable way? I do not think many noble Lords mentioned risk in terms of development. If you ask developers, the things that they are interested in are speed, certainty of decision-making and risk. This is a particular issue in places such as London, where you have huge upfront costs—buying the land, the development process and so forth. If you are building a large block of flats, you cannot sell them until you have completed the whole building. For those of us in rural areas, if you have 10 acres and are building detached houses, you can build them a house at a time and your upfront costs are so much less. Ensuring that you have a safe process is absolutely the first thing, but how can we also give people certainty that they will get through the process and know what the requirements are? That is how we will be able to get more buildings done.
The figures in the report illustrate the scale of the issues. The target is 12 weeks. In May this year, it was 35 weeks. I am really impressed that it is now 22 weeks, which is an improvement. We acknowledge that, but there is more progress to be done in the process. Delays inevitably have consequences, not just for new buildings but in existing buildings where remediation needs to happen. It means leaseholders remain in buildings with unresolved safety issues for longer than they need to. Remediation schemes are extended. Development pipelines are slowed and councils, particularly those engaged in regeneration, face uncertainty that can affect viability, funding and sequencing.
The committee is also right to highlight skills. It seems that everything in the development world revolves around a shortage of skills—whether of planners, plasterers, brickies or electricians. This is a critical area of safety, and I am really pleased that the Building Safety Regulator has been able to get more people with the skills they need. The one question I will ask is about an experience we have had with planners. When there is a downturn for developers—clearly, they are not bringing forward as many projects as they have in the past; their demand has gone down—we find that there are more people available on the regulator and planning side. I would like an assurance from the Minister that we recognise the need for a skills pipeline but are not overoptimistic, as we could be in a situation where, because of a slowdown in the number of developers bringing forward projects, the demand on their side is reduced and availability for the regulator is increased. I think that is something we need to look at.
One particularly important recommendation that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, brought forward was around the well-judged balance in determining what needs to be approved and when. That is very important for looking at category A and category B and the timing. Getting everything done up front is great, but when you are dealing with something with very high costs involved, if you are able in a safe way—as the committee suggests—to do it over a period of time and bring forward things at the appropriate time rather than up front, that has significant benefits. Equally, as we have been saying, with category A and category B works, it is about ensuring that you have the right specialist expertise operating on the most demanding aspects and the appropriate levels at some of the other maybe less demanding categories, such as category B.
We have talked about clarity of communication. I would also mention—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Roe, raised this—that building safety is not a static discipline. As the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Best, said, we need to ensure that there are safe materials and that they are tested suitably. That is not necessarily within the remit of the Building Safety Regulator at the moment but, as we get a better understanding of what safe materials and safe design are and how fire operates in a building, with that greater knowledge and experience, the Building Safety Regulator should look at how regulation can evolve to ensure that we enhance building safety and have a responsive regulator. I am very keen that those lessons are brought forward and that we can evolve our approach to regulation to ensure that we improve our safety.
In conclusion, we are dealing with two parallel national priorities: the remediation of unsafe buildings in the wake of Grenfell and the need to increase housing supply across the country and to ensure that buildings are safe. These priorities should not be in conflict and they do not need to be. A system that restores confidence in building safety will support investment and delivery, but a system that is slow and unpredictable risks undermining both. That is why the report is so important. It does not question the principle of strong regulation or seek to dilute the lessons of Grenfell; rather, it focuses on how we can ensure that the system introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 works as effectively as Parliament intended and as is needed. I hope the Government will give the committee’s recommendations careful consideration. They are practical, measured and focused on improving outcomes, rather than on the process for its own sake. I commend the report to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, not just for forwarding my mail when we get sent each other’s mail but for securing such an important debate and for what my noble friend Lady Warwick described as a comprehensive and forensic introduction. I am also grateful to the members of the Industry and Regulators Committee. This is a detailed and thoughtful report on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Roe, to Charlie Pugsley and the team at the Building Safety Regulator and to Mark Reynolds and the Construction Leadership Council. All have played a fundamental part in moving this issue forward significantly, partly as the committee was doing its work but also since the report was published.
I recognise much of what has been said today. I thank all noble Lords for their constructive contributions, as well as their recognition that progress is being made now. Of course, the 72 victims of Grenfell and the survivors sit at the heart of this issue. My noble friend Lord John rightly reminded us of the fire at Lakanal House in Southwark, where six people were killed and 20 were injured. We must always keep the lessons learned from those dreadful incidents, as well as how to take this issue forward in future, right at the heart of the issue.
The committee’s inquiry forms an important part of Parliament’s wider scrutiny of regulators. Its report is a timely and valuable assessment of whether the Building Safety Regulator has the capacity, the capability and the right approach needed to deliver the statutory functions effectively; as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, they were set out in the Building Safety Act. It has rightly examined how the regulator is operating in practice, how it is responding to early challenges and how it can continue to build confidence as the new regime matures. Since its establishment under the Building Safety Act, the BSR has been central to delivering post-Grenfell reforms and to restoring confidence in the safety of our built environment. There cannot be anything more distressing than not feeling that you are safe in your own home. At the heart of this work are the residents themselves, who rightly expect a regulatory regime that is rigorous in its standards but also clear, proportionate and effective in how it operates in practice. As my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, reminded us, this has also been a handbrake on the development that we need in this country.
Taken together, these points underline the scale of the task that the regulator was asked to take on and the importance of ensuring that it is properly supported to mature, adapt and improve over time. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roe for giving such a valuable insight into the role of the regulator, the situation as it was and the data emerging as improvement is made. This is vital in order to build public confidence and that of the industry.
The regulator now operates as a stand-alone organisation sponsored by the department, marking an important step towards reducing the fragmentation that was identified in the system in both the Hackitt review and the Grenfell reports. That has given the BSR, as a new organisation, greater operational flexibility and clearer accountability, while allowing it to focus on its core regulatory functions.
My noble friend Lady Taylor reminds us that public trust in the regime depends not just on its intent but on how clearly, consistently and efficiently it operates on the ground. That is why the department and the Building Safety Regulator have worked closely together to implement a substantial programme of operational reforms. I accept that the reforms took longer than anticipated to get going, but they are beginning now to deliver tangible improvements. Over the past 12 weeks, close to 10,000 homes have been approved, including more than 2,000 in London. Performance has improved markedly, with new-build approval rates rising to 90%, up from 33% in February. In April, the BSR also introduced an external remediation improvement plan, supported by updated guidance for existing higher-risk buildings, to accelerate the pace of remediation. Approval rates for remediation cases—I think my noble friend Lord Roe quoted this—rose to 79% in May, exceeding the 65% target.
It is also important to consider how improvements in regulatory performance sit alongside our wider objectives on housing delivery. Building safety and growth are not competing objectives; they are two sides of the same coin. Proportionate and effective regulation is essential both to ensuring that homes are built and remediated safely and to supporting housing delivery by reducing the risk of people remaining in unsafe ageing buildings or in temporary accommodation.
Against that backdrop, the Government welcome the committee’s recommendation and the challenge that it has provided in this area. We published our formal response in February this year, and we remain committed to continuing to improve the operation of the Building Safety Regulator. That includes listening carefully to feedback from residents, industry stakeholders, developers and Members of this House to ensure that the regime continues to evolve in a way that delivers safety, confidence and homes that people can trust.
I turn to some of the specific issues raised today, and I will set out how the Government are responding to some of those issues. My noble friend Lady Taylor and other noble Lords raised issues around the gateway 2 delays that we saw back in the day. As the committee highlighted, timely decision-making is critical, which is why we have focused on improving throughput at gateway 2. My noble friend is quite right: clarity of expectation for the industry is vital. The legacy gateway 2 new-build backlog has now been cleared, down from 103 cases in September 2025. New-build applications are being approved within 22 weeks on average by the innovation unit, compared with 37 weeks in July 2025. As set out by my noble friend Lord Roe, that balance is being achieved by working with developers.
Early expectations on BSR approval timelines were set before operational capacity and system maturity were fully established. It is key to say that things have moved on since then, and the BSR strategic plan now sets a clear and deliverable trajectory towards 18-week determinations. The focus now is on embedding these improvements so that stronger performance at gateway 2 is sustained. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned risk in development. He is right that we must try to get through the process of assessing and dealing with risk as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also mentioned gateway 3 approvals. Gateway 3 is still relatively new and only a small number of projects have reached that stage, but it is a critical final check before the occupation of higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator is ensuring that regulatory scrutiny is front-loaded at gateway 2, but the learning is helping developers and the Building Safety Regulator refine the gateway 3 process, improving consistency and efficiency while maintaining a firm focus on resident safety. The peril here is that I am looking at the chair of the Building Safety Regulator to make sure of what I am saying. He is nodding.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the review of the higher-risk regime, including the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord John. We have acted on the committee’s recommendation to review the higher risk building control regime to make sure that it is proportionate for lower risk and routine works. We consulted on how building work to existing buildings should be categorised under the higher-risk regime, ensuring that the information submitted to the regulator is proportionate to the scale and nature of the work while maintaining safety standards. That included proposals to reduce documentation requirements for building work within individual flats and for small-scale works in communal areas of existing higher-risk buildings. The consultation has now closed and we are carefully considering its responses. I hope it will enable a more proportionate response.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the building professions, trades and occupations. Having the skills to do this work is vital. To support this, on 26 March the Government announced a £70 million investment to address shortages in building inspectors and fire engineers—the largest investment in these vital safety professions for generations. This sits alongside the wider construction skills package, to which the Government committed £625 million to improve training quality and to recruit an additional 60,000 skilled construction workers by 2028. We are committed to working with the sector to publish a new long-term strategy for building professions, which will carry out a system-wide review of regulation competence and culture, including the creation of a new central oversight function. On 20 May, we launched a call for evidence on this. I encourage all those interested to respond by the deadline of 12 August.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Roe, talk about the engagement that has taken place with the industry, because I know this came out clearly in the committee’s report. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke about the quality of applications, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. We have worked very closely with industry, including through the Construction Leadership Council, to improve the quality of applications and strengthen that two-way engagement. As noble Lords have rightly said, this is a two-way process. Alongside this, the BSR has published a comprehensive suite of guidance, both directly and with industry partners, covering building control approvals, application requirements and key stages such as completion. This has been supported by wider resources including webinars and practical materials to help duty holders understand and meet their obligations. We think this is now driving significant improvement in the quality of remediation and new-build applications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke powerfully about the phasing of decision-making around less high-risk buildings and the noble Lord, Lord John, spoke about consistency in decision-making. The BSR is now taking a more structured and consistent approach to decision-making, including through that clearer guidance, stronger quality assurance and greater engagement with industry. This is improving the predictability of gateway decisions, which will be critical, and maintaining a robust and proportionate safety regime with a shared expectation that applications will meet the required standard.
On reporting transparency, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Taylor, raised issues about the BSR reaching its KPIs. The noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the BSR saying that it felt that it could not comply, in the early days. I hope we have moved on from that now.
Transparency and regular reporting are critical so that Parliament and the industry can track performance and understand how the regime is operating in practice. For this reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Roe, said, the Building Safety Regulator now publishes monthly data on building control approval applications, covering both new-build and remediation activity. That regular publication helps provide visibility of volumes, progress and trends, and supports scrutiny of improvements over time. The Building Safety Regulator is under a statutory duty to publish a strategic plan setting out its priorities, and, as a new arm’s-length body, it will also publish an annual report and accounts to provide transparent reporting on its performance.
A number of key issues were raised around construction products—an issue about which I personally feel extremely strongly. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Jamieson, all raised this issue. The committee was clear that long-standing weaknesses in the construction products regime must be addressed to close the regulatory gaps and restore confidence that the products we see on the market are safe. For that reason, we published a construction products White Paper in February this year, outlining proposals for ambitious, system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.
The systemic dishonesty in continuing to market the dangerous products we all know about now, when their failings were well known throughout the industry, was disgraceful. Confidence must now be restored. That cannot wait any longer; we have to tackle this product-related harm. The White Paper delivers: a path to implementing a new general safety requirement to bring unregulated products into scope more quickly; a step change in product information, testing standards, certification oversight and digitisation so that those installing and using products can rely on clear and trustworthy information; a coherent regulatory framework; and a system that incentivises safety while supporting innovation, enabling the industry to grow with confidence. The White Paper and general safety requirement consultations have now closed, and our reform proposals will help build renewed confidence and trust in the construction product sector for residents—and the industry, because working with unsafe products affects not just residents but the people who work in the industry.
The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Best, raised issues around under 11-metre buildings. Buildings that have fewer than five storeys or are below 11 metres are not within scope of the leaseholder protections introduced by the Building Safety Act, but we recognise the concerns raised by leaseholders who fall outside these protections. The Government are actively considering how we can go further to support those affected. In line with the remediation acceleration plan, we are committed to providing targeted funding in limited circumstances through a small fund for the remediation of cladding in buildings under 11 metres. Further details of the scheme design and how it will operate will be set out in July ahead of the Summer Recess.
I welcome the comments from the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, and others about the steps that have already been taken towards the single construction regulator. In December, we published the prospectus and the consultation. We are now analysing the responses to that consultation and will publish a response this summer. The Building Safety Regulator’s functions will form a key foundation of a single construction regulator, with changes carefully phased to avoid disruption. Primary legislation is required to implement several proposals; we will bring forward that necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, rightly raised the issue of the regulator’s costs. Detailed costs will be set out in due course as we finalise the design and funding model for the regulator. Our priority will be to ensure that it has the resources to be effective while keeping costs proportionate. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of a review of the new regulator to make sure that we do not end up with something that is not working being allowed to carry on. We are considering the responses to the consultation. We expect the regulator to be introduced on a phased basis, but I assure the Committee that we are aware of the need for an early assessment of how it is working; that will be put in place.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the pace of remediation and the delays in implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, rightly raised the issues around how this is taking effect in the social housing sector. Back in December 2024, we launched our remediation acceleration plan, and, in July 2025, we set out further steps, including the intention to bring forward primary legislation and more than £1 billion in new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing, giving social landlords equal access to government funding schemes with immediate effect. We are working with the BSR to establish a new remediation enforcement unit focused on buildings with unsafe cladding that are 18 metres and above. The noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Warwick, reminded us of the impact on leaseholders, which is certainly part of the Government’s considerations.
Since April 2024, we have also invested £39 million to strengthen regulatory capacity across local authorities, fire and rescue services and metro mayors, supporting the Building Safety Regulator to hold those responsible for remediation to account. Nearly nine years on from Grenfell, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. We will shortly bring forward the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill, which will drive forward cladding remediation and ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards fixing the problem they caused. We will introduce a new legal duty to remediate, requiring those responsible to assess their buildings and promptly fix unsafe cladding, or face criminal prosecution. When they do not, a new remediation backstop will allow a third party to step in and carry out the work. Every building made safe means fewer families left waiting and real progress towards helping people move on with their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the cost of the building regime—an important issue that I will cover briefly. The committee raised concerns about the cost impacts of the building safety regime and the importance of ensuring that fees are fair, transparent and linked to improve performance. The Building Safety Regulator’s fees and charges are set in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance and operate on a cost-recovery basis. Any changes to fees would need to be considered carefully, alongside wider efforts to improve system capacity, efficiency and the consistency of decision-making. Should future changes be made, the Government will take into account the committee’s recommendations as part of their wider assessment of what the options might be.
I hope that I have covered the points made by noble Lords. In conclusion, the Government remain firmly committed to a building safety regime that is both robust and proportionate and which protects residents, maintains confidence and supports the delivery of safe homes. The committee’s recommendations have provided a valuable challenge and clear focus on what matters most: safety, consistency, transparency and delivery in practice. As I have set out today, we have already taken significant steps to strengthen the operation of the higher risk regime, and we will continue to refine it where necessary to make sure that it works effectively for residents and the sector.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for securing this debate, and to all noble Lords who have contributed, and I thank the committee for its very careful and constructive work. I look forward to continuing the dialogue as we work collectively to make sure that the building safety system delivers for residents and the wider sector for the long term.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I said at the beginning that there was a wealth of experience in this Room; the speeches that we have heard this afternoon prove that. Every individual person has added their own insight into the nature of the problems that we are talking about, which has been extremely useful.
The starting point that we all had was that the idea of a Building Safety Regulator was something that everyone agreed was necessary. It was born out of those tragic circumstances that we must all have at the back of our minds, and it is a great shame that it got off to such a difficult start. In many respects, it was understandable that the pressures to emphasise, “This must never happen again” perhaps froze some people’s outlook in terms of what could be done and how it should operate. We all agreed that the initial period of the Building Safety Regulator resulted in delays, bottlenecks, a lack of transparency, and bureaucracy that was not necessary and could have been avoided, but unfortunately that is where we are.
It was a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we look at this issue, because of some of the delays that he had heard about. The more we looked into this, the more concerned we became. It was the intention of the committee to raise awareness of this issue, to highlight the difficulties that were being faced that were causing delays and difficulties for people who needed new housing—because, as my noble friend Lord Roe and others pointed out, not having a decent home is in itself a danger. We hoped that the establishment of the committee would highlight these issues and focus on the need for change.
I was really pleased when my noble friend Lord Roe said that the committee was actually a useful lever to drive forward the change. It was part of our intention to highlight the problems that could happen. Perhaps things happened more quickly than we anticipated, because we got the sense while we were taking evidence and coming up with ideas that we were having an impact, and that was extremely helpful.
So we are seeing some improvements that have been outlined by my noble friend Lord Roe and the Minister. Perhaps even more important than some of the technical improvements, although they are massively important—getting teams working together—are the beginnings of the cultural change that was being talked about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, you cannot legislate for cultural change, but when you have a regulator and an industry working together to try to improve things, you have the best way forward, and that is what we have been hearing about this evening.
The Minister outlined what she and her department are doing. Her approach is very much along the lines that the committee was hoping for. So I welcome what she has said on a whole range of issues.
I end by saying that we hope that the Minister will keep pressure on my noble friend Lord Roe, keep holding him to account and keep reporting back to Parliament, because that is the best way of giving us assurances about what is happening, and the best way of individuals being able to raise problems that perhaps do not come immediately to those who are at the coalface, so to speak. So I hope that the Minister will keep us posted.
There are still some outstanding issues. The Minister mentioned some of them. Consulting on the proportionate approach is very important. I noted that she did not give a specific date. Perhaps that was wise, because these things can drift from time to time. Making progress on products I think is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that we must all be able to trust that the materials in our buildings are safe. There is an urgency about that need and I think it is one that the Minister will have to continue to look at.
The progress towards a single construction regulator will have to be considered and people will have to be kept in touch and consulted about the best way forward, because we do not want to recreate new problems in the future.
The one issue I will mention that still concerns me is the question of skills. The Minister outlined the very significant investment that the Government are making. I wrote down the figure that she mentioned. Wanting 60,000 by 2028, we have a very deep problem in terms of skills shortages in this country. The Government’s targets are extremely ambitious. It really is a priority of the Government to concentrate on this, for everybody’s sake, not just in construction but across the board—but particularly in construction, especially when we look at the age profile of many of those involved.
I am very glad that we can see tangible improvements. I am very glad that we can see some development of cultural change. I thank everybody who has contributed to this. I assure the Minister and my noble friend Lord Roe that people will be keeping an eye on this issue and I am very pleased that everybody has been able to participate in this debate.