1/7 A Tale of Two Scandals. Today the government has announced it will change the law to refund investors who lost money in the London & Capital Finance mini bond scheme. Why? Because the government accepts the FCA failed to regulate the firm properly. #EndOurCladdingScandal
2/7 Quite rightly, the government is going to change the law so innocent investors can get the same level of compensation they would have received had they been eligible under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, see: bit.ly/3x63cyN
3/7 Compare and contrast that to #EndOurCladdingScandal. There, the government admits there has been widespread regulatory failure. It proposes to pay out a tiny fraction of the cost. A cost vastly inflated by its own botched interventions via Advice Notes and waking watch.
4/7 The government also proposes to change the law. Not in ways that would help the residents. But instead to remove all doubt that they are legally responsible for paying these costs, now and forever.
5/7 Adding insult to injury, the same government that is bailing out London & Capital Finance investors is proposing that other victims borrow money to pay for bills being forced on them by government action and developers’ failures. So they can pay the cost plus interest.
6/7 Last but not least, the same government is proposing to let itself and the developers who caused this mess off with only 1/3 (at most) of the bill between them. So what does this show?
7/7 When the government wants to do something for people wronged by incompetent regulators and greedy, unscrupulous institutions it can. Including changing the law to help. So why can it not do the same for leaseholders with the #FireSafetyBill tomorrow? Same issue. Same solution
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Lords is currently considering the item before the Fire Safety Bill. This is a new law to exempt the square footage of public toilets from business rates. The idea is the tax break will encourage private building owners to provide more toilets.
I am working with @nbdbuk and a team of volunteers to explain today's proceedings via live tweets. Thank you to everyone helping.
The Lords will debate whether to add one of 3 amendments to the bill. The first is @BishopStAlbans. It bans leaseholders from paying costs associated with the #FireSafetyBill until the gov't produces a comprehensive scheme to prevent leaseholders paying for others' mistakes.
#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.
1/6 Perhaps this shows the Westminster government’s ignorance of fundamental issues contributing to the cladding scandal. For starters, it’s a waste of time spending money, whether that’s £97 million or 97 pence, until you know how many buildings are affected #NotJustCladding
2/6 Secondly, you also need to know the range of issues across the population of buildings. Thirdly, you need to determine what “safe” looks like and the expense reasonably justifiable in reaching that level of “safe” balanced against the risk posed by any given building.
3/6 Fourthly, you then need to work out how to phase works so the highest risk buildings (those farthest from “safe”) are fixed first and there are sufficient materials and manpower available at all times. Otherwise the risk is prices will shoot up.
3/ Lord Greenhalgh’s opening comments are that the Bill has so far taken a year. He does not want it held up by further amendments because this is not the place the resolve the issues raised by any of the amendments.