Kelly Tolhurst

I refer my Hon Friend to my answer to Question UIN 122751 on 21 February 2022.

The Building Safety Bill currently in the House of Lords marks the next step in the Government’s ongoing reforms to make sure everyone’s home is a place of safety. The Bill is part of a package of legislative changes to move things forward and make sure the problems Dame Judith Hackitt identified with the current building and fire safety regime are rectified. The package includes the measures in the Fire Safety Act 2021 and changes to the Fire Safety Order alongside the current Building Safety Bill.

The new regime established through the Building Safety Bill will:

• Establish a national Building Safety Regulator at the heart of our reformed building regulations and fire safety system. The Regulator will make buildings safer by enforcing a stringent new regulatory regime for high-rise residential and other in scope buildings, overseeing the safety and performance of all buildings, and increasing the competence of those working across the built environment.
• require those responsible for buildings when they are occupied to actively manage building risks, evidencing this through a new ‘safety case’ regime. This will make sure that proportionate steps are taken to deal with building risks in high-rise buildings through prevention, control, mitigation and ongoing management.
• It will also give a greater voice to residents of tall buildings to air their concerns and toughen sanctions against those who threaten their safety.

The Department has also taken steps to ensure that industry takes a proportionate approach in the assessment of the external walls of buildings. The government has supported the development of guidance which aims to provide risk proportionate guidance to competent assessors. This guidance (PAS 9980) provides new advice on how to assess the risk of fire via an external wall of an existing multi-storey, multi-occupied residential building. It sets out steps that can be taken to identify and assess risk factors as well as mitigation measures that might improve the risk rating of a building via a holistic and fact-based assessment of a building’s construction.

Under the current system, Approved Inspectors such as NHBC are independently monitored and regulated by CICAIR Ltd to carry out building control work in England (and Wales). CICAIR Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Construction Industry Council (CIC) and the approval process it operates provides a route to registration as an Approved Inspector.

The Building Safety Regulator will be responsible for oversight of the competence and performance of building control professionals and the building control bodies in which they work, taking a wider view of the professionalism and culture that needs to support building safety in all classes of work, not just in-scope buildings. To do this, we are introducing a system of oversight of the performance of building control bodies (Local Authorities and Registered Building Control Approvers), and a system of individual registration based on competence and adherence to a code of conduct, all overseen by the Building Safety Regulator.

The Department does not hold this information. An independent expert statement in July this year was clear that there is no systemic risk of fire in residential buildings under 18 metres and that EWS1s should not be required by lenders on buildings under 18 metres. The Government strongly supports this position and made this clear in its written statement of 21 July. Existing EWS1 assessments of buildings under 18 metres should be reviewed to ensure that proportionate risk management and mitigation has been considered before committing to remediation, and the Building Owner should share that information with the leaseholders.

The Government is aware of anecdotal reports of lenders requesting remediation to be completed prior to lending. The Department does not support this approach and is of the firm view that a clear financing plan for remediation, including Government grant funding, removes the financial risk to lenders and should enable mortgage lending to progress.

Under competition law, responsibility for investigating individual and market-wide competition issues falls to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s competition authority. If an individual is concerned about the conduct of individual ports, or the state of competition in the market as a whole, these concerns can be submitted to the CMA. The Government has ensured that the CMA has significant powers to investigate and act if it finds that a company has abused its dominant position within a market. As an independent authority, the CMA has discretion to investigate competition cases which, according to its prioritisation principles, it considers most appropriate. The CMA also has powers to conduct detailed examinations of why particular markets may not be working well, and decide what remedial action is appropriate.

Under competition law, responsibility for investigating individual and market-wide competition issues falls to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s competition authority. If an individual is concerned about the conduct of individual ports, or the state of competition in the market as a whole, these concerns can be submitted to the CMA. The Government has ensured that the CMA has significant powers to investigate and act if it finds that a company has abused its dominant position within a market. As an independent authority, the CMA has discretion to investigate competition cases which, according to its prioritisation principles, it considers most appropriate. The CMA also has powers to conduct detailed examinations of why particular markets may not be working well, and decide what remedial action is appropriate.

Under competition law, responsibility for investigating individual and market-wide competition issues falls to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s competition authority. If an individual is concerned about the conduct of individual ports, or the state of competition in the market as a whole, these concerns can be submitted to the CMA. The Government has ensured that the CMA has significant powers to investigate and act against anticompetitive conduct. As an independent authority, the CMA has discretion to investigate competition cases which, according to its prioritisation principles, it considers most appropriate. The CMA also has powers to conduct detailed examinations of why particular markets may not be working well, and decide what remedial action is appropriate.

Under competition law, responsibility for investigating individual and market-wide competition issues falls to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s competition authority. If an individual is concerned about the conduct of individual ports, or the state of competition in the market as a whole, these concerns can be submitted to the CMA. The Government has ensured that the CMA has significant powers to investigate and act against anticompetitive conduct. As an independent authority, the CMA has discretion to investigate competition cases which, according to its prioritisation principles, it considers most appropriate. The CMA also has powers to conduct detailed examinations of why particular markets may not be working well, and decide what remedial action is appropriate.

Under competition law, responsibility for investigating individual and market-wide competition issues falls to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s competition authority. If an individual is concerned about the conduct of individual ports, or the state of competition in the market as a whole, these concerns can be submitted to the CMA. The Government has ensured that the CMA has significant powers to investigate and act against anticompetitive conduct. As an independent authority, the CMA has discretion to investigate competition cases which, according to its prioritisation principles, it considers most appropriate. The CMA also has powers to conduct detailed examinations of why particular markets may not be working well, and decide what remedial action is appropriate.

By the end of March 2021, the Environment Agency will have invested £2.6 billion to better protect 300,000 homes from flooding and coastal erosion risk between 2015/16 and 2020/21. Since April 2015, the Environment Agency and other Risk Management Authorities will have completed almost 750 new flood and coastal defence projects across the country.

From April 2021, a new 6 year investment programme will start, which will invest the £5.2 billion announced in the March 2020 Budget. This will ensure a further 336,000 homes and non-residential properties are better protected from flooding and coastal erosion.

In addition, a further up to £170 million will be spent to accelerate work on 22 shovel-ready flood defence schemes that will begin construction before the end of 2021/2022. This additional funding will provide an immediate boost to jobs supporting local economies as communities recover from the impact of coronavirus.

An additional £200 million will also be invested in the Innovative Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme. This will help over 25 local areas over six years to take forward wider innovative actions that improve their resilience to flooding and coastal erosion.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest are afforded statutory protection through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Additionally, the National Planning Policy Framework clarifies that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

The Government has no current plans to make changes to the regulation of charges imposed on port operators and will continue to utilise the mechanisms that exist in the Harbours Act 1964 for managing objections over Harbour Dues. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, a review of whether the Port Services Regulations 2019 are required will be initiated as part of broader EU regulatory reviews.

The Government has no current plans to make changes to the regulation of charges imposed on port operators. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, a review of whether the Port Services Regulations 2019 are required will be initiated as part of broader EU regulatory reviews.

The UK has a very competitive, privately operated ports sector. The Government is committed to supporting this competitiveness and has an ongoing dialogue with port operators to ensure their interests are fully taken into account.

The Government has no current plans to amend the Harbours Act 1964, but will keep the port regulatory regime under review to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

The Government has no current plans to make changes to the charges levied by port operators.

The pricing of financial products is a commercial decision for firms and the Government does not seek to intervene in such decisions.

The independent Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England makes monetary policy decisions independently of the Government. Therefore, the Government does not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy. The MPC sets the base rate of interest, which is known as Bank Rate. This is the rate of interest the Bank of England will pay on reserves held with them by commercial banks. MPC decisions over Bank Rate guide commercial banks’ decisions over retail interest rates, i.e. interest rates they charge on loans and pay on deposits. However, retail banks also make commercial judgements that influence the degree of pass‐through from changes in Bank Rate into retail interest rates, with conditions in financial markets and in the banking sector also influencing interest rates paid on deposits or charged for lending.

Capital allowances, including writing down allowances, provide tax relief for businesses' capital expenditure on qualifying plant or machinery.

In 1997 a 6 per cent special rate writing down allowance was introduced for assets with a long life, which is more than 25 years, to align their tax position more closely with the commercial accounts of a business. This compared to a 25 per cent main rate, which is now 18 per cent, for plant and machinery.

HMRC does not classify which assets should be written down at the main or special rate of writing down allowances. Instead, businesses should identify whether an asset they have acquired has a useful economic life of more or less than 25 years when new.

Ships were initially exempted from this change, with owners given 13 years to adjust to the long-life asset rules. Ships are now treated consistently with all other business assets.

The Government keeps all tax reliefs under review.

Capital allowances, including writing down allowances, provide tax relief for businesses' capital expenditure on qualifying plant or machinery.

In 1997 a 6 per cent special rate writing down allowance was introduced for assets with a long life, which is more than 25 years, to align their tax position more closely with the commercial accounts of a business. This compared to a 25 per cent main rate, which is now 18 per cent, for plant and machinery.

HMRC does not classify which assets should be written down at the main or special rate of writing down allowances. Instead, businesses should identify whether an asset they have acquired has a useful economic life of more or less than 25 years when new.

Ships were initially exempted from this change, with owners given 13 years to adjust to the long-life asset rules. Ships are now treated consistently with all other business assets.

The Government keeps all tax reliefs under review.

The Treasury maintains regular contact with HMRC about all aspects of capital allowances policy.

HMRC does not classify which assets should be written down at the main or special rate of writing down allowances. Instead, businesses should identify whether an asset they have acquired has a useful economic life (UEL) of more or less than 25 years when new.

The Treasury maintains regular contact with HMRC about all aspects of capital allowances policy.

HMRC does not classify which assets should be written down at the main or special rate of writing down allowances. Instead, businesses should identify whether an asset they have acquired has a useful economic life (UEL) of more or less than 25 years when new.

The Home Office carefully considered the possible impacts of the new immigration system, making best use of existing evidence and data – this included a review undertaken by the Migration Advisory Committee in the design of the Points Based System.

Prior to the launch of the Skilled Worker route we published a detailed Impact Assessment which set out a range of impacts. The Government continues to monitor the immigration system and the wider UK economy impacts on migration flows and the labour market, and whether this is in line with our detailed planning assumptions. As part of this, the Government regularly engages the MAC for their expert and independent view.

The Points Based System, including the Skilled Worker route, provides for many occupations in the maritime and agricultural sector (which has its own sector specific scheme for horticultural roles), if the requirements of the system are met.

We realise the need to get unsafe cladding remediated as swiftly as possible as public safety is our first priority. We will make further details of the financing scheme available as soon as possible.

The Government is providing grants for the removal of unsafe cladding systems from residential buildings over 18 metres. In lower rise buildings of 11-18 metres, with a lower risk to safety, leaseholders will gain new protection from the costs of cladding removal through a financing scheme that will limit repayments so that leaseholders will never pay more than £50 a month. We are developing the details to ensure it protects leaseholders, prioritising affordability and accelerating remediation where required. Further details of the financing scheme will be available as soon as possible.

The Government is providing further grant funding of £3.5 billion in addition to the £1.6 billion already provided to fund the removal of unsafe cladding systems from residential buildings of 18 metres and over in England. We are also providing expert construction consultation support to actively engage with those planning and undertaking remediation work being funded by the Government to increase the pace of remediation. In addition to this, the Government is providing a £30 million Waking Watch Relief Fund to pay for the costs of installing an alarm system in high rise buildings with unsafe cladding. Common alarm systems will enable costly waking watch measures to be replaced in buildings waiting to have unsafe cladding removed.

The Government has recently announced a generous financing scheme which will mean that buildings of 11-18 metres in height will be able to make use of finance for the remediation of unsafe cladding, with a commitment that leaseholders will not need to pay more than £50 a month towards this. By providing this financing scheme we are ensuring that money is available for remediation, accelerating the process and making homes safer as quickly as possible. We are developing the underpinning details to ensure it protects leaseholders, prioritising affordability and accelerating remediation where required and we will release further information on this financing scheme as soon as we can.

However, Government funding and other support does not absolve industry from responsibility and taking action. We expect developers, investors and building owners to cover remediation costs themselves, meeting their legal and contractual obligations, recovering costs or drawing on warranties where applicable, without passing on costs to leaseholders. This is happening in over half of all private sector high-rise residential buildings with unsafe Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding systems.

The Government has rightly targeted the Building Safety Fund at the removal of unsafe cladding on higher rise buildings (over 18 metres), where the risk is greater and the cost of cladding remediation is higher. This is in line with longstanding independent expert advice. We know that as buildings get taller there is greater risk. That is why we are making sure that these buildings are remediated and have provided grants to get this done quickly.

Between 11 metres and 18 metres the risk profile of buildings is different and will not always require the same level of remediation when risks are identified. However, we want to make sure that residents and leaseholders in these buildings also have peace of mind and financial certainty. Our financing scheme for these buildings will give them confidence that remediation of dangerous cladding can take place, and leaseholders will not be asked to pay more than £50 a month towards it.

The Government has announced a generous financing scheme which will mean that buildings of 11-18 metres in height will be able to make use of finance for the remediation of unsafe cladding, with a commitment that leaseholders will not need to pay more than £50 a month towards this. By providing this financing scheme we are ensuring that funding is available for remediation, accelerating the process and making homes safer as quickly as possible.