#FireSafetyBill THREAD We're approaching the end of the debate on the Trade Bill. The debate has concerned what steps Parliament should take to avoid entering into trade deals with countries with poor human rights records. After a vote Commons will move on to the Fire Safety Bill
1/ The question the House of Commons is being asked today on #FireSafetyBill is whether the Lords amendment (aka McPartland-Smith amendment) should stay as part of the bill or not. There will be a one hour debate followed by a vote.
2/ Things to watch today are (1) whether the government offers anything to help leaseholders beyond what has already been announced and/or (2) whether any Conservative MPs vote against the government or abstain from voting.
3/ The #FireSafetyBill is "English Votes for English Laws" (although the rules are suspended at the moment), so only English and Welsh MPs can vote. Without any rebellion, government should have a majority of 146 this evening, if every English and Welsh MP votes.
4/ Division (vote) on Trade Bill has just started. Vote will take approximately 10 minutes then we are on to the #FireSafetyBill
5/ Important to remember that today is not the end, whichever way it goes. Ultimately this is a political issue that does not require a new law to solve. The government can choose to provide up-front funding recovered via a tax on developers to spare leaseholders from costs.
6/ Gov't just nearly defeated on the Trade Bill 318-300 (should have a majority of 87). The vote just now was on whether to add a further amendment, which government won by 18. A second vote is now being held on whether Trade Bill should go back to Lords with gov't amends.
7/ And then we will get on to the #FireSafetyBill, so another 10-15 minutes to go.
8/ And thanks to my friends @nbdbuk and everyone else participating for organising and getting involved in the Twitter tree to repeat these live tweets. Hopefully I won't make too many comical spelling mistakes!
9/ Trade Bill vote result just being read out now. Government sends Trade Bill back to Lords 319-297. Gov't majority cut from 87 to 22.
10/ Commons will have a short break while the COVID cleaning is done and then we will move on to the #FireSafetyBill
11/ Actually, no suspension because cleaning already done. #FireSafetyBill debate starting now.
12/ @ChrisPincher now moving government motion to throw out the McPartland-Smith/St. Albans amendment added by the Lords last week.
13/ @ChrisPincher reiterates that the government is trying to implement the Grenfell Inquiry recommendations. Mentions the existing £5 billion already committed to save leaseholders from costs, targeted at highest risk buildings.
14/ Unfortunately, this £5 billion is too little when estimated costs are more than £15 billion. Leaseholders slated to pay 2/3rds of the costs even with this money.
15/ @ChrisPincher also praises large listed developers who have announced accounting provisions to pay goodwill settlements for buildings they built. There is all manner of strings attached to that money.
16/ @ChrisPincher says McPartland-Smith/St. Albans amendment would require serious work to stand as part of the #FireSafetyBill. This repeats what @team_greenhalgh said in Lords last week. Gov't still hasn't put forward its own alternative proposal to fix these issues.
17/ @LabourSJ now speaking. Says it is welcome that government is committing to implementing Grenfell Inquiry recommendations to a timetable, as Labour previously requested.
18/ @LabourSJ refers to a letter from government sent today, not yet published, committed to making it easier to evacuate disabled people from high-rise buildings.
19/ @LabourSJ says leaseholders should not have to pay to cover the costs for fire safety works. They are not to blame and are the least able to afford the works.
20/ @LabourSJ agrees with @sdoughtymp that government should get a move on and announce what is going to happen with developer levy and money for devolved regions to cover remedial costs.
21/ @LabourSJ says that people are going bankrupt from costs. Notes that thousands of leaseholders write every time there is a debate hoping that government will do the right thing by leaseholders. Says it is sad that the gov't is still not taking this issue seriously.
22/ @LabourSJ welcomes @SMcPartland @Royston_Smith and @BishopStAlbans amendment. Says it is "direct and deliberate betrayal" of leaseholders by government in government's decision to try to throw out that amendment.
23/ @LabourSJ says members across Commons are united in ensuring that innocent leaseholders should not have to foot these bills. Says government should put into law protections for leaseholders across the country.
24/ @PBottomleyMP speaking now. Says that if amendment rejected it would mean the Fire Safety Bill will impose an automatic obligation on leaseholders to pay, which may go beyond lease terms in some cases.
25/ @PBottomleyMP notes @Lees_Martina article over the weekend on how managing agents stand to make a fortune in fees from potentially unnecessary fees as a result of the free-for-all the government has created with Advice Notes and EWS-1
26/ @PBottomleyMP says that it cannot be right to ask leaseholders to pay costs for buildings they do not own and to "set the leaseholders free"
27/ Clive Betts - chair of Commons Housing Select Committee -- now speaking. Says he supports the Lords' amendment. Says important to remember that social tenants are paying as well as leaseholders, via their rents. That issue should be looked at too.
28/ Clive Betts says leaseholders in blocks under 18 metres will face forced loans. Notes that @team_greenhalgh was unable to explain operation of forced loans scheme when he appeared before committee on 8 March.
29/ Clive Betts is right that the forced loans scheme will be a disaster. It is a legal quagmire trying to attach a loan to a building and legislating for the £50/month cap will also be horrifically complicated.
30/ Clive Betts also says that there are problems with the funding from gov't on offer. It only covers cladding. That may still leave leaseholders with £20-25k to find for non-cladding works even if they want to claim the gov't grants.
31/ @SMcPartland speaking now. Thanks @BishopStAlbans. Says it is about time government tabled its own amendment if the problems in his amendment are so great. Says taxpayers shouldn't pay. Those who are responsible, the builders, should pay.
32/ @SMcPartland says what government is asking Commons to do today is "shameful" says that #FireSafetyBill is transferring a liability onto leaseholders.
33/ @SMcPartland says he visited an affected block today. Remedial costs there were greater than the value of the flats contained within the building.
34/ This perhaps underlines how managing agents and others have filled their boots with adding fees and profit margins onto works in the current ill-defined approach to remedial works. Gov't bears responsibility for this with flawed Advice Notes and EWS-1 etc.
35/ @hilarybennmp now speaking. Says that he supports amendment. Says leaseholders deserve reassurance that they should not have to pay costs for which they are not responsible.
36/ @hilarybennmp says that govt's current funding offer is confused. Says gov't offering money for cladding but not internal fire safety defects. Says that there is no guarantee that buildings can be declared safe if cladding works are completed but internal works left undone.
37/ @hilarybennmp says fixing these problems will take a long time. Leaseholders do not have time. They are already paying for waking watches. Section 20 demands are already arriving asking leaseholders to pay cladding, one for £71,000.
38/ Says that leaseholders will end up bankrupt and homeless at the current rate. Who can pay a £71k bill. Gov't demonstrates its ignorance of leaseholders' plight by saying #FireSafetyBill is not correct place to address their concerns.
39/ @royston_smith speaking. Holds up an invoice for service charge and fire safety remediation bill for £79,000 (yes, seventy-nine thousand). Asks MPs to imagine being stuck in an unsellable flat and then a bill of that size arrives.
40/ @royston_smith says bills like the one he is waving around won't stop coming. This has nothing to do with politics. Or ideology. Asks if it is any wonder leaseholders feel there is some sort of conspiracy against them? Asks what is being done about developers, contractors etc
41/ @royston_smith says there is both political and economic logic in favour of voting in favour of the amendment and calls on his colleagues to do the same.
42/ @vickyfoxcroft speaking now about plight of leaseholders unable to move and facing bankruptcy. Says it is understandable why those who should be taking responsibility are not. Refers to @BerkeleyGroupUK whose CEO has dodged questions and invitations to attend meetings.
43/ @vickyfoxcroft says leaseholders are afraid to go to sleep and afraid for their finances. Many residents do not qualify for the limited government funding on offer. Some of her constituents face having to borrow £3mn under the forced loan scheme, together with waking watch
44/ @vickyfoxcroft says that leaseholders are unable to remortgage. Calls out botched EWS-1 process following government's half-baked Advice Notes.
45/ @coyleneil now speaking. Says ministers have promised multiple times to spare leaseholders from costs. They have been let down by government. His constituents now face unaffordable costs.
46/ @coyleneil says that government guidance has needlessly affected buildings insurance and mortgages. Asks for government to create a VAT exemption on essential works for fire safety remediation. This will increase funds available by 20%.
47/ @coyleneil asks for Treasury to meet with campaigners to discuss VAT exemption. Says government should not "profiteer" from cladding disaster.
48/ @BobBlackman says that grants only available for >18m cladding and buildings 11-18m subject to hazy forced loan scheme.
49/ @BobBlackman says #FireSafetyBill is necessary to address issues revealed by Grenfell fire. Reality is that people who provided sub-standard materials or who built in breach of Building Regulations should be forced to carry out remediation or pay costs.
50/ @BobBlackman says that Commons should send a strong signal tonight that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece to fix defects not of their making. Says #FireSafetyBill must be amended because Building Safety Bill will take another 18 months. Leaseholders can't wait
51/ @bobblackman says if government objects to the McPartland-Smith amendment then it should come back with a better proposal.
52/ @libdemdaisy speaking now. Thanks @SMcPartland @Royston_Smith @BishopStAlbans @KathPinnock for their work in approving amendment. Says that government's current funding proposal is inadequate because it is #NotJustCladding
53/ @libdemdaisy says government keeps offering excuses for not accepting McPartland-Smith, but they are poor excuses and they get worse each time the government repeats them. Gov't has had 4 years to come up with something better and has not done so.
54/ @libdemdaisy makes fair point that #FireSafetyBill in unamended form will be a disaster greater than EWS-1. It will require both internal and external assessment of fire safety. It will be a dream come true for freeholders and managing agents looking for fees
55/ And to cover their legal risks at leaseholders' expense. That is what the Fire Safety Bill will allow.
56/ @LiamFox speaking now. Refers to a letter from his constituent saying that leaseholders should not pay. Taxpayer should pay if it is a regulatory failure. Else builders and insurers should pay. £3.5 billion extra funding is a step forward but devil in detail.
57/ @LiamFox says determining risk on the basis of building height is a crude and ineffective measure. The key is to get those responsible to pay. Negative equity and difficulty selling is causing immense distress.
58/ @LiamFox says there is no sign of the market sorting this issue out, as may be expected. Says he asked what ministers had done to agree an approach with banks and insurers. Until they are on-board this issue will not be solved.
59/ @LiamFox says that "urgency is the key" in solving these issues.
60/ @FloEshalomi says she welcomes the amendment because it gives an opportunity for Commons to think again. Says there are many powerful arguments in favour of helping leaseholders facing these issues.
61/ @FloEshalomi says that disabled leaseholders are particularly affected by the building safety scandal. They need somewhere secure to live given their disabilities. Many thousands must be spent on adaptations, making it difficult to move.
62/ @FloEshalomi says the disabled and even less likely than other leaseholders to have the income or savings to meet the huge bills for remediation now being demanded.
63/ @ShabanaMahmood says the issue before the house is simple: should leaseholders be forced to pay for issues not of their own making? All of costs attributable to cladding scandal are down to failures of developers and successive governments, not to leaseholders.
64/ @ShabanaMahmood says costs should not fall on leaseholders. Says there should be a levy on developers and construction industry to remediate all risks, not just cladding. @LKPleasehold has already proposed such a scheme. Gov'ts £2 billion developer tax is a pale imitation.
65/ @ShabanaMahmood calls for new procurement powers for local authorities and Metro Mayors to exclude developers who have caused the current mess from future taxpayer funded work.
66/ @kevinhollinrake (former estate agent) now speaking. Says it is not right leaseholders are faced with bills of tens of thousands. Says won't support amendment because it does not make clear who should pay, only who should not pay.
67/ @kevinhollinrake interrupted by @Royston_Smith who asks why people keep complaining that the amendment is defective but no-one suggests any alternative. @kevinhollinrake says he did offer last time.
68/ @kevinhollinrake says risk with the amendment is that freeholders will walk away and costs will end up back on leaseholders. Legally, it is not that simple. Freeholds are property lasting forever. Someone has to be responsible for the freehold, or it goes to the Crown.
69/ @kevinhollinrake calls for government to adopt risk-based solutions other than replacing cladding for lower-rise buildings, which will hopefully be cheaper.
70/ @kevinhollinrake praises large listed developers for making provisions to make goodwill settlements. Ignores the fact that these provisions are insufficient and come with a great many strings attached. Also says he welcomes a developer levy, says cladding and insultation
71/ manufacturers. Says we also need to look at insurers and others.
72/ @neill_bob will be last speaker. Time runs out for debate at 8.55. Says amendment is not perfect but is the only amendment on the table. Leaseholders are innocent. They bought in good faith. They should not be excluded from funding based on building height.
73/ @neill_bob says that government needs to think again and continue to try to come up with better solutions. Leaseholders do not have time or cashflow to wait or to fund works. Developers and others should be pursued. Says leaseholders' lives are being destroyed.
74/ @neill_bob says there is no time to wait for Building Safety Bill. Leaseholders need to be protected and must be protected now. Urges government to come up with a comprehensive financial solution. Says that this is not a question of caveat emptor/buyer beware.
75/ @ChrisPincher summing up debate now. We can already see there are no concessions on offer from the government today. It seems government is willing to accept a rebellion from Conservative backbenchers today.
76/ @SDoughtyMP interrupts, again pressing case for a meeting with Welsh officials to sort out cladding remediation funding for leaseholders in Wales.
77/ @ChrisPincher continues his speech. Says Parliamentarians have a duty to implement a transparent Fire Safety and Building Safety regime. Repeats that amendment proposed cannot be accepted. It is unworkable.
78/ @ChrisPincher says that the amendment does not cover costs arising outside #FireSafetyBill, for example if works were recovered during routine building works.
79/ @ChrisPincher says building owners may sue the government to recover from taxpayer costs they may claim should be recovered from leaseholders. This is nonsense. The law is changed all the time and that affects contractual rights.
80/ In fact, the government's Building Safety Charge is the one that carries a litigation risk, between leaseholders and freeholders. It is ill-conceived and badly drafted and is likely to cause all manner of problems.
81/ @ChrisPincher says amendment is counter-productive because developer tax proposals have yet to be announced. Repeats that freeholders may go into insolvency process and walk away.
82/ Again, not true. The freehold has to be owned by someone otherwise its bona vacantia (goes back to the Crown, i.e. the taxpayer).
83/ @ChrisPincher insists that government is working hard to make sure those responsible will pay. Says that Chancellor announced in Budget a levy on developers. I think he's mistaken. There was no announcement in the Budget. Says details of tax are being worked out.
84/ Interesting such effort is being made to spare small and medium-sized developers from proposed Developer Tax. Why not the same care for leaseholders?
85/ @chrispincher heaps praise on large listed developers which have announced accounting provisions for goodwill settlements. These settlements total around 2% of the estimated costs. They are also highly conditional and may never actually be spent, its up to companies.
86/ Debate has run out of time. Commons now voting on whether to reject Lords amendment or not. As said earlier, the government should ordinarily have a majority of 146 in this vote. It will be interesting to see what the result actually is given backbench opposition.
87/ The vote should take about 10 minutes then we will get the result. And then I, for one, shall be having one very large drink.
88/ And we're back with results.
89/ Result is amendment is rejected 322-253. Gov't majority of 69, down from 146 expected
90/ Bill now goes back to Lords, which has three options 1/ accept today's vote or 2/ try another amendment or 3/ try same amendment again. It's not over yet.
91/ It will be interesting to look at voting record. There is obviously a sizeable rebellion or abstention here. Gov't vote was way down on what would have been expected, showing depth of feeling from inside Conservative party on this.
92/ Voting record will be here in the next few minutes: votes.parliament.uk
93/ It is not over yet. Fire Safety Bill must still be agreed by Lords before it becomes law. There is still chance to pressure government into a political solution.
94/ Vote record just published here: bit.ly/392jQVG 29 Conservative MPs voted against their party. 8 abstained. Northern Irish MPs also voted in large numbers against the government.
95/ Tonight's vote shows government has a serious problem. More than 10% of the Parliamentary party was prepared to vote against or abstain. It will have to reconsider unless it wants to risk outright defeat next time the bill comes back from the Commons.
96/ Over to the Lords for the next steps. We should know tomorrow whether Lords is going to consider before Parliament shuts down for Easter Recess on 25 March. It's back on 13 April.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
