My Lords, I first need to declare that I am shortly going to become a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I hope that will not distort my judgment too much. I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, said on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, a speedy recovery. I thank her and her officials for the help they gave in discussions over the last week or so.
I welcome the Government’s amendments, but my welcome is muted. They cut back on the overreach of ministerial powers which was so endemic in the original proposition, but they do nothing to remedy the serious problems that remain with the provisions as they are
at the moment. That is why the three amendments in my name have been tabled and are up for consideration in this group.
The first serious problem is the impact this new legislation will have on the work of the Health and Safety Executive in bringing into force the new regime established only 12 months ago by the Building Safety Act 2022, which we are in the process of amending. That Act mandates the Health and Safety Executive to conduct the biggest shake-up of building safety in my lifetime, and the HSE has made a huge investment in new procedures, training and staffing to make the high-rise construction sector safe for the future. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, referenced that. The main features of that building safety regime go live next month and, as she quite rightly said, are being introduced over the course of the next 12 or 15 months. It has not been an easy job and it has needed the full weight and heft of the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that progress was maintained and will be delivered on time—or almost on time; it has been delayed even so.
The Minister’s explanation of the Government’s policy intentions, which is basically business as usual, just not with HSE, rather undermines the case for taking action now. It seems, from what she said and from what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in her briefing to me last week, that it really is the case that we are not going to change the reach, functions or structure of the regulator. If nothing can be added or subtracted without more primary legislation being enacted that is not in this legislation, what exactly are we trying to achieve by doing this? Is it just a change of brand name? That is what it seems to come down to. The HSE is much more than a trusted brand. It is a much-feared enforcer in the construction industry. It can prosecute firms and send bosses to prison. When the HSE says jump, they jump.
It seems a strange moment for the Government to recommend to the House that it gives Whitehall the power to rebadge the regulator but say not to worry as everything else is being left unchanged. If you cast doubt on the continuing role and viability of the Health and Safety Executive when it comes to standards and enforcements, you will give the laggards of the construction industry the toehold they are looking for. They were lobbying for a slowdown before, and we can see what it will be like once the HSE is taken out of the equation.
This proposal poses a real risk to the smooth and effective start-up to the vital new buildings safety regime, despite the assurances the noble Baroness gave a few moments ago. It will give a foothold for the naysayers and, dare I say it, the big donors to begin their fightback against the regulation and enforcement of this new regime.
The second big problem is that it appears the Minister still has no idea what would replace the Health and Safety Executive. This legislation invites us to change horses in midstream, but there is no second horse. The one thing we know is that it will not be called the HSE. Maybe it could be called Tesco, or maybe a highly trusted brand of “Made in Whitehall” will be established to replace it. Whatever it is, we will not be able to see,
measure, evaluate or amend it until a new regulator, yet to be imagined by Ministers, is delivered to us to sign off via the affirmative procedure. That is not good enough. It will give the lobbyists another slice of the cake as Ministers go through the process of drawing such a scheme up.
The third serious issue is that, despite what the Minister said, Clause 223 allows Ministers to change fundamentally how the new regulator is structured and organised and can change the task currently entrusted to the Health and Safety Executive and its statutory committees that are a core part of its work. It specifically states that the Secretary of State can amend
“governing procedures and arrangements (including the role and membership of committees and sub-committees)”
It is absolutely not the case that the amendments the Government have brought forward today prevent that happening.
6 pm
My Amendment 256A ensures that those wider powers are constrained by preventing them being used to undo the valuable work that noble Lords did during the passage of the Building Safety Act only 12 months ago. That is important, not least because many noble Lords argued strongly during the passage of that Act last year for an immediate extension of building regulations to include electrical fire safety. I associate myself with the concerns and remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and his amendments in that respect. There were also strong voices raised—and indeed amendments passed—on the safety of staircases and ramps, safe escape from buildings for people with mobility issues and for an investigation of fire suppression systems such as sprinklers. The outcome of that was Clause 21 of the Building Safety Act, which requires the regulator within three years to carry out a review for the case of regulation in each of those areas, to report back to the Government and for there to be a formal government response to the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendations. My amendments, if passed, will ensure that the Government’s replacement regulator retains those duties. Despite the good intentions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bybrook and Lady Swinburne, the amendments that they have brought forward do not prevent Ministers taking those safeguards out and perhaps officials advising Ministers to do so.
Other parts of my amendments safeguard the existence and purpose of the three statutory committees that the Health and Safety Executive has set up: the Building Advisory Committee, the Industry Competence Committee and the Residents’ Panel. They were strengthened when they were debated during the passage of Building Safety Bill so that they would be more effective. The Building Advisory Committee is the whistleblowing, technical and professional body tasked with providing advice to Whitehall on the adequacy of new and existing regulations. Its reports are made in public and must be responded to in public. Section 12(2) of the Act provides that any changes made to those committees can be made by the Secretary of State only in response to a proposal from the regulator, not by just pulling a bright idea out of a special adviser’s kit.
If the Government genuinely want to safeguard the whole of the apparatus of the current regulatory regime, I urge the Minister to accept my amendment to make sure that they are safeguarding those three vital committees and reinforcing the obligations for those long-awaited safety studies to be made by the regulator, published and formally responded to by Ministers on the three-year timescale currently in legislation. If the Minister is not able to do so, then in due course I will wish to test the opinion of the House.
I have also made it plain that I do not see any reason for this untimely, rushed and ill-considered proposal to take the Building Safety Regulator away from the Health and Safety Executive in the first place, and that is why I also have Amendments 267 and 268. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support on that. The amendments seek to remove the two offending clauses from the Bill, thereby making it a better and shorter Bill. We will come to that in due course.