Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am pleased to speak about this statutory instrument, which as Members will see contains a set of technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. The instrument is designed to ensure that the regulations work exactly as intended, with clear, workable rules for regulators and building control professionals, and effective protections for third parties.
By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years to 4 April 2022. Forty-five developers have joined the responsible actors scheme. Together, they are responsible for remediating more than 2,500 buildings, at an estimated cost of around £4.1 billion. The scheme is backed by planning and building control prohibitions, which would be applied to eligible developers that decide not to join the scheme or have their membership revoked for non-compliance, as well as to entities they control. The amendments in the instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and their exceptions would operate in practice if a developer is prohibited in the future.
Since the scheme was launched in 2023, technical drafting issues and ambiguities have been identified. The purpose of the instrument is to address those issues, so that protections for residents and purchasers of property work as intended if prohibitions are needed.
First, the instrument will remove an ambiguity in the 2023 regulations. If a developer were to be prohibited, that developer should not be able to make building control applications, but the original regulations did not spell that out explicitly in the list of prohibited matters. The amendments resolve that by making clear that building control applications are included wherever the prohibitions apply. The amendments also update terminology, so that the process of issuing completion and partial completion certificates matches the way that building control now operates, preventing confusion for local authorities and private registered building control approvers.
Secondly, the instrument will ensure that the emergency repairs exception works properly. Under the exception, emergency safety repairs are allowed to go ahead if a developer is prohibited. For taller buildings, there is a route to get such work formally signed off afterwards, but an omission in the 2023 regulations means that that route does not currently exist for buildings below 18 metres in height. The amendments correct this, creating a route so that, should such a situation arise, urgent safety work can be properly checked and signed off for all buildings.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place. I want to understand a bit more about the operation of the prohibitions list. I note from the Department’s webpage that there are no suppliers or providers on that list. Is that because no one has fallen foul of the regulations, or because they were so inadequately drafted in the first place that it was not possible to put people on the list?
Samantha Dixon
My hon. Friend tempts me to get into a debate about the efficacy of the original—
Samantha Dixon
I will simply say that although no prohibition has been effected, that is not to say that the Government would not do so in the future—I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government’s own documentation contradicts what the Minister has just said. Sections 9.1 to 9.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Government’s SI present the draft regulations as not requiring an impact assessment, and say that these are purely minor technical changes that will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. However, when we look on the Government’s own website, it is interesting that there seem to be no firms on the prohibitions list. The Minister will be familiar with the Comer Group, for example, which was subject to a very significant fine of £7.8 million in Greenwich for what Greenwich council described as a “mutant development”, in the home constituency of the Minister for Housing and Planning. Has the Comer Group signed up to the scheme? If not, why is it not on the prohibitions list?
Samantha Dixon
The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific issue; I do not know the details of that particular development in that particular constituency, but I will write to him with the details of that particular business.
Steve Barclay
I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I simply point out to the House that this development was so notable that the Housing Minister raised it in opposition—he tabled parliamentary questions on this issue and flagged it in advance of the election. Two years on, it seems odd that Ministers do not know what has happened with it.
In reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, can the Minister name a single firm on the prohibitions list? If she cannot do so, given the fact that before the election the Government said they wanted to move quicker on this issue, why have they not done so?
Samantha Dixon
There are no firms on the prohibitions list. However, as I stated, the Government are prepared to use the sanctions available, should they be required in the future. I will fulfil my commitment to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the full details in due course, if he will permit me to do so.
Thirdly, the draft regulations strengthen the exception that allows normal maintenance to continue in occupied residential buildings. This exception is there to ensure that routine upkeep can carry on, and that residents are not put at risk if their freeholder or responsible entity has been prohibited. At present, there are technical issues with how the relevant building control processes are set out. The amendments clarify the procedural routes available to building control professionals, and they ensure that where the exception applies, those responsible can use either the local authority building control route or the private building control route effectively.
Fourthly, the draft regulations strengthen protections for homebuyers where a sale is already well advanced when a prohibition takes effect. As things stand, only the prohibited developer can apply for the exception needed to complete the transaction, which leaves purchasers reliant on a party that may not prioritise the application. That risks buyers being negatively affected by the prohibitions through no fault of their own. The amendments fix that issue by allowing the buyer to apply, giving homebuyers greater control and reducing the risk of avoidable delay.
Finally, the draft regulations resolve drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Some wording in the regulations created double negatives that could be read as limiting eligibility for the scheme to social housing providers, which was never the intention. The amendments remove that ambiguity. The draft regulations also remove a redundant notification requirement for developers, which served no practical purpose because planners would already rely on the official published list of prohibited developers. Taking it out simplifies the framework without affecting the planning prohibition.
In summary, these are technical but important improvements. They ensure that, if the prohibitions were ever applied, the prohibitions and exceptions would operate clearly and consistently, protect residents and homebuyers from unintended impacts and give building control bodies the necessary clarity to use the prohibitions and exceptions effectively. These amendments will make the system clearer and more robust. The intent of the scheme remains the same: to make sure that developers that built unsafe buildings take responsibility for making them safe, and, in doing so, protect leaseholders from unfair costs. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and appreciate the remarks Committee members have made already. Ensuring the safety of people’s homes is, of course, a vital part of the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the aftermath of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the disaster that was the Grenfell Tower fire, the previous Government began that process through key pieces of legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. In many ways, the Opposition are pleased to see that work continue under this Government and the stewardship of the Minister.
Unfortunately, apparently not all parties see eye to eye on the matter. Changes to the planning system, including reforms to well intentioned safeguards such as the Building Safety Regulator, may be necessary. That is far from what Reform UK’s most senior designated spokesperson on housing said just before the recess. His comments cannot merely be described as misguided; they were insensitive to the point of being cruel and dismissive. That lamentable episode once again highlighted Reform’s inability to grasp the technicalities of many policy issues, and, critically, the inability of this one-man-band to muzzle its improperly vetted spokespeople and their shocking views.
Let me move on to the detail of the statutory instrument. The previous Government launched the responsible actors scheme in July 2023. The aim was clear and responsible: to use sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recognise action taken by responsible developers to locate, assess, remediate or pay to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings with a height of 11 metres or more that they had developed or refurbished over the 30 years leading to April 2022, as the Minister said.
The other side of establishing the scheme was to create a responsible actors scheme prohibitions list, and I note the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire. The explanatory memorandum says that the Department
“will continue to monitor and publish data”
on that, but it appears that there is no data, so I would welcome it if the Minister copied me into her response to my right hon. Friend. The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions.
As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding. The Government have said that
“the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.]
In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to
“provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.”
That pledge was made in July 2025. Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed?
It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am forced to agree with the hon. Member for Orpington—it does not come easily—about the Reform party spokesperson. He was not just a junior member of the Reform party but its official housing spokesperson, and his commentary on the Grenfell disaster and on the measures—for which there is cross-party support across the House—that must necessarily be taken to improve building regulation—
Gideon Amos
It is relevant because the regulations address the Grenfell tragedy. It is worth placing on record that the Reform spokesperson’s comment that,
“everyone dies in the end”,
is a totally unacceptable and monstrous response to the building safety tragedy and emergency that we face.
The statutory instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the building safety regime. The Liberal Democrats support those changes, which will ensure that the system functions as intended. We must never let a tragedy like Grenfell happen again; all parties should agree on that. However, the SI sits within a wider framework that is still somewhat lacking. There remains a concerning mismatch between the Building Safety Act and the PAS 9980 fire safety standard. That mismatch risks leaving serious defects unaddressed and standards must be aligned to ensure that all building safety risks are properly identified and remediated.
We are also concerned that the building safety levy will not provide sufficient funding for remediation and to support the sector as a whole, particularly the social housing sector. Too many leaseholders therefore remain exposed to costs that they should not have to bear. The Government must ensure that all leaseholders are protected from remediation costs, not just leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres in height. Although we support the statutory instrument, much more needs to be done to ensure that the building safety system works effectively and delivers safe homes for all.
Steve Barclay
I rise because I listened carefully to the Minister and there was an inherent contradiction in her opening remarks. The legislation was presented as minor, technical and not significant—in fact so insignificant that it has no impact assessment, as is referred to in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum. Yet it states in paragraph 5.3 that the legislation deals with
“developers who refuse to remediate life-critical fire safety defects”,
so we are talking about a hugely significant issue, on which many hon. Members in the Labour party have, post-Grenfell, quite rightly campaigned. It is an issue through which many home owners have been left in limbo.
One would have thought that legislation introduced to the House on that important issue, legislation which can remediate life-critical fire safety defects, would be significant, particularly when paragraph 5.6 goes on to state that the consequences for non-compliance with the legislation are severe because the regulations prevent a developer from completing other major developments. That is a very significant tool to ensure that critical fire safety issues are addressed and that those developers who behave irresponsibly can be held to account. I would again expect there to be agreement across the House on that. Labour Members have no doubt campaigned for such developers to be held to account, and that is in the SI: there is a clear lever with which developers who have not taken action on critical fire safety issues can be, in essence, stopped from selling their future developments. That is what the legislation is all about.
A third piece of evidence is the manifesto on which Labour Members stood. In the general election campaign, Labour said it wanted to “take decisive action” on this issue. What better opportunity for taking decisive action than introducing legislation to the House? Yet the Minister does not even seem to comply with paragraph 10.1— I have not seen any notes from officials to help her out either—which states that the Department should already be publishing data on progress. We are almost two years into their Administration and, as I pointed out, no less than the Housing Minister himself tabled parliamentary questions on this issue.
The Housing Minister has a burning constituency issue with a controversial developer in his own constituency that, in January of last year, was subjected to a fine of some £7.8 million by the Planning Inspectorate. Is it not odd that we cannot get any information on any firms that have been put on the prohibitions list in the last two years, including the one that was apparently connected to a “mutant development” in the Housing Minister’s own constituency?
Justin Madders
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Housing Minister would have to recuse himself of any involvement in a matter involving his own constituency.
Steve Barclay
Of course, but I am sure that he, as a constituency MP, would diligently lobby his colleagues in the appropriate way to take action. I would also think that the Housing team as a whole would share his view that where a developer in the constituency that he represents has behaved in a way that has led to a £7.8 million fine, that might be within scope of the decisive action talked about in the Labour manifesto.
What I find remarkable is that the Minister does not seem to know. She has come to the Committee today to present legislation, and when she answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, I did not hear her mention a single firm that was on the prohibitions list. I therefore followed up with a specific question, to try to help her out. I asked about the Comer Group because that is one of the most high profile ones; it was raised before the last election by her own colleague, and she does not even know about the Housing Minister’s own concern.
We are being told today that this is an opportunity to take action against developers who have failed to do the right thing on critical fire safety issues, yet two years in the Minister cannot update the House on any decisive action that has been taken. The Department is saying publicly that it publishes regular data and we are here debating the legislation today and colleagues are being asked to vote on it. Again, there is nothing in this legislation that I disagree with. Cancelling out a double negative and giving a bit of clarity in the language is all fine and well, but what a wasted opportunity!
Why is the Minister presenting legislation without knowing the basic facts, such as how many developers have been put on the prohibitions list? She has had time for her officials to give her a note. I hope that when she sums up the debate we will get the number of firms on the prohibitions list and specifically whether the Comer Group is on it. The officials have their laptops open. I am sure they can send an email to the Department—
The Chair
Order. It is not fair to go on about the officials; the right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister.
Samantha Dixon
I thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, for their constructive and important points today. I can reassure Members that there is considerable work going on in this area.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire has misunderstood; I will be generous. The purpose of the regulations when they were initially introduced was to encourage all eligible developers to sign up to the scheme. They did so, which is why none are on the prohibited list. I hope that clarifies for him why there is nothing on the prohibited list. The developers work with the Department. Indeed, last month the Secretary of State and I met developers, the Building Safety Regulator and freeholders to discuss the developer remediation contract. We hold developers to account for their remediation progress, including with a dedicated caseworker team, and we scrutinise detailed quarterly data returns. To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, a full impact assessment was published alongside the original regulations. The regulations in front of us today tidy up what were, to be charitable, quickly drawn-up regulations that need to be amended so that they work effectively and appropriately.
I thank the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their remarks. The Government plan to bring forward a remediation Bill when parliamentary time allows. More details will come forward at that point.
In closing, the regulations make important technical amendments to the 2023 regulations. They remove drafting ambiguities, clarify how the prohibitions operate in practice, and make sure key exceptions, whether for emergency repairs, routine maintenance or home purchases, work as they were intended to, to protect residents and leaseholders. The amendments do not change the requirements on developers to remediate.
Question put and agreed to.