Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating Andrew Roe on his peerage. The experience that he will bring to your Lordships’ House from London Fire Brigade and the building safety regulator will be enormously welcome.

This instrument was debated in another place last week, on 10 December, and it completed its consideration in 12 minutes. On 11 December, the Industry and Regulators Committee produced its report, headed Building a Better Regulator. Within that report is a chapter on exactly the subject that we are debating this afternoon—namely, the single construction regulator—and it gives the background to the decision to which the Minister referred: the need to have a single construction regulator. It goes on to say that witnesses were broadly supportive of the proposal for the single regulator, with several suggesting that the current system was “fragmented”.

However—and this is the point that I want to make in this very short intervention—there were notes of caution. The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists argued that

“it is more important that these functions be delivered effectively, than that they be delivered by a single body”.

The institute suggested that the priority should be addressing current regulatory challenges rather than merging functions. Philip White questioned whether this was the right time to establish it and, as with the BSR’s move from HSE to a body within MHCLG, he argued that the organisational change would lead to “disruption”, while suggesting that the regulator would do its best to

“keep business going as usual”.

The Select Committee listened to that argument and to the argument for going straight ahead, and concluded, in paragraph 106:

“We support the Government’s broad proposal to establish a single construction regulator. However, we heard concerns that organisational changes could distract from the immediate imperative of improving operational performance. The implementation of this further organisational change should wait until the BSR is delivering its building control decisions within statutory timeframes”.


As we know, that is not what it is doing, so the question that I want the Minister to answer is: why is she going ahead, it seems, in defiance of a very clear recommendation from a Select Committee? I appreciate that it reported last week, after the instrument had been laid, but none the less it is a clear recommendation that we should not go ahead in January. I wonder how the Minister would respond to that clear recommendation from a unanimous report by one of your Lordships’ Select Committees.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a very short intervention. I was quite interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about what the Select Committee said about this. Some noble Lords will be aware that I have taken an interest in this matter because of some communications I have received over the last few months in relation to delays in getting the building safety regulator’s approval, which have caused huge difficulties for the construction industry, the housing industry and individuals who want to move into a new property or premises.

In principle, I have no issue with a single construction regulator—on the basis that it will be an improvement. I am not yet convinced that it will be an improvement, because we have not seen that with our current system. I would like to see much better progress with the system we have before we move it to an arm’s-length body, because you sometimes lose a level of control with an arm’s-length body. I listened to the Minister indicate that there will still be a control mechanism. I am keen to hear what that control process will be because, if it is to be a more accountable system, it must be more accountable to both this House and the other place. Otherwise, we will not get the improvements that we are looking for and desire.

I am broadly supportive of having a single construction regulator, but we are not getting the process properly implemented as it is, so I am keen to know how it will be improved under the new process.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I shall add a very brief footnote to what he has just said.

It of course makes sense for there to be co-operation and co-ordination between public authorities as they develop community infrastructure. Otherwise, as the noble Lord has just said, you get housing estates without the shops, schools and medical centres that are needed. A local plan would normally do this. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify which authorities do it best. It is some time since I was a Planning Minister, but it was certainly the case that some planning authorities were exemplary in how they led the planning system and others fell far behind. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify the leaders in the field, publish the best practice and invite local authorities to follow that best practice. That seems to me to be in everyone’s interest, because the whole planning system depends on high-quality, up-to-date local plans. The amendment is seeking to do that. If a new clause is a step too far for the Minister, perhaps it could be incorporated into the NPPF or other guidance.

I shall say a final word on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment about involving local MPs, which in some cases is linked to what I have just spoken about. Her amendment would simply add the local MP to the list of interested parties in a development that has national implications. It would not give them any additional rights; it would simply ensure that, if there is a development, one of the people who has to be notified is the local MP. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined the case very well. Any sensible developer would have involved the local MP at a much earlier stage, so I see this as a long stop, so that if for any reason the local MP has not been involved he is not at a loss when the local paper rings him up just before deadline asking him whether he has a view on what has just been proposed. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible amendment, and I hope the Minister is able to smile on it.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points on these amendments. They are a wee bit difficult to link up in some respects. I understand that most of them are about providing checks and balances within the system, or as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, framed it, more transparency.

I support the broad principle of these amendments, including the duty of candour, if we can refine that in the planning system. On Amendment 185SG, the key is getting public authorities and local authorities to work together. I support public authorities having a general principle for their schools, health authorities, hospitals or whatever, provided that it gives enough flexibility for local areas to make decisions, which might be different in a rural area from decisions in London. We need to make sure there is that flexibility.

Finally, we need to ensure that it does not delay the processes. Sometimes, if you put additional checks and balances in planning, local authorities will use them as an excuse for why there is a delay in a planning decision being taken at a much earlier stage. In broad principle, I support the basis of these amendments, but we need to make sure that they would not delay the processes.