Robert Jenrick on his feet in the Commons for the second reading of the Building Safety bill
Jenrick says he'll be laying down a written ministerial statement on the subject shortly which is "market sensitive" and ergo MPs haven't seen it yet
@LucyMPowell says it's completely unacceptable for a ministerial statement not to be laid before the debate so MPs can scrutinise
@LucyMPowell says it's completely unacceptable for a ministerial statement not to be laid before the debate so MPs can scrutinise
Mike Penning (Conservative) also says it's completely unacceptable and criticises Robert Jenrick for not giving MPs more notice
Jenrick says that fire risk is generally low. He says that's why he's drawing the line at 18m as these are the buildings which pose the greatest safety risk.
Yet leaseholders in buildings which are much shorter are being faced with huge bills.
Yet leaseholders in buildings which are much shorter are being faced with huge bills.
.@hilarybennmp: "The SoS says the risk of fire is low...but can the SoS explain then why thousands and thousands of leaseholders are paying for expensive waking watches, having been told by their fire services that unless they have them the building will be closed down?"
Jenrick says that waking watches are an element of the market failure which exists, saying they're expensive, inefficient and could be replaced by alarms. Says Home Sec is looking at this with fire services and he'd like to see most WWs closed as quickly as poss.
Jenrick says the govt will strengthen the ombudsman to deal with problems around new builds. Says there will now be a forum where these "issues will be settled"
Jenrick says that the bill extends litigation periods
How much help this will actually be for leaseholders is deeply contested. As I reported last night, even in a case where a building has literally burnt down, leaseholders are struggling to litigate
How much help this will actually be for leaseholders is deeply contested. As I reported last night, even in a case where a building has literally burnt down, leaseholders are struggling to litigate
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1417595661139255300?s=20
Jenrick on developers
"I want to recognise some house builders have stepped up...some have not, or at least not in the way I expect them to do...the industry needs to go further."
But critics say this is the problem, expectations aren't enough and govt must make them.
"I want to recognise some house builders have stepped up...some have not, or at least not in the way I expect them to do...the industry needs to go further."
But critics say this is the problem, expectations aren't enough and govt must make them.
Jenrick: "I want to be clear that the vast majority of residents in all homes in this country, including blocks of flats, should not feel unsafe."
Still no sign of the written statement online. MPs continuing to pressure the SoS
Seems that the written statement says that EWS1 forms won't be necessary for buildings which are shorter than 18m- if so that's a pretty significant shift....
On where there the written statement is there seems to have been a fault at the vote office. Am told it will be online imminently.
.@LucyMPowell: "The relationship of leaseholders and developers is like David and Goliath. Legal action is uncertain, expensive and risky...it also requires that a company still exists to sue but many have disappeared since."
"What's more, given what we know from Hackitt and elsewhere, in how many cases can all the blame be legally pinned on a developer- given the failures of the regulatory regime at the time? Very few I'd imagine."
Powell: "Two prime ministers, his two immediate predecessors as well as as the SoS himself that leaseholders should not pay. I agree- I think we all agree in here? so why does the bill not say it?"
Confusion abounding about exactly what Robert Jenrick has announced on EWS1 forms. According to the ministerial statement the govt’s position is they should no longer be required and several lenders have “welcomed” t advice 
So- it seems that is something government wants but we don’t know how long it will take to happen and if it will happen across all lenders.
Other question- what about leaseholders who have already paid for the work? Do they get the money back?
Other question- what about leaseholders who have already paid for the work? Do they get the money back?
Stephen McPartland (Con): “I believe the written ministerial statement could begin to reverse some of the damage the SoS did- but it will need to be put into legislation to provide real practical support for leaseholders, not just rhetoric.”
MPs asking what this all means for leaseholders currently engaged in remedial works and who have already suffered enormous costs.
Think it’s fair to say confusion is reigning about what the SoS has announced.
Think it’s fair to say confusion is reigning about what the SoS has announced.
Also important to say that the EWS1 form relates only to cladding. Even if banks do agree for it to be removed it'll do nothing for the legion of other buildings with non cladding problems but with other remedial work. There's been talk of a loan scheme for this-no sign of it.
Notable just how much concern there is about this across the House. Hard to overstate how big a problem this is- MPs from all sides with so many constituents affected. For this reason, if there aren't changes between now and 3rd reading, govt could have a problem.
Matthew Offord (Con): 'The bill is focussed on constructing and maintaining new buildings rather than fixing safety issues in existing blocks."
Bob Blackman (Con): "The fact is that leaseholders are being presented with huge bills right now- they don't have 18 months to wait to resolve these issues and to sort them out. We need action right now." Makes point as I was saying earlier that we have no details for loan scheme
Notable how many Conservative MPs are in favour of govt stepping into pay bills if necessary and regulation was at fault.
Bob Blackman: "The govt has to find a way to find the remediation because the government was responsible for putting in place regulations."
Bob Blackman: "The govt has to find a way to find the remediation because the government was responsible for putting in place regulations."
.@hilarybennmp references Richmond House fire, which we featured on last night's Newsnight. It would be unaffected by govt proposals-was only 10m (but burnt down anyway, despite what govt says about smaller buildings) and didn't have a cladding problem.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1417595661139255300?s=20
bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09… you can watch our Richmond House report from last night here.
Rachel Hopkins (Lab): “How can it be that property developers, who are making millions each year are protected while teachers, nurses, shopkeepers, transport workers, carers and pensioners are left to pick up the bill?”
Bob Neill (Con) says he welcomes the bill but: “there are areas where the bill will require improvement...the protection of leaseholders especially where there are historic improvement remains critical. The problem is a growing one.”
Near unanimous agreement across the house that there needs to be much improvement to the bill on protection for leaseholders.
Inbox was already overflowing with leaseholders at the lowest ebb, mental health crushed over years. So depressing as have been tweeting the debate that yet more have come in. I know I keep saying it but you cannot overstate the extent of this and we all need to pay attention.
NEW: Building Safety Bill passes without division at second reading.
But it’s very clear the next stage is going to be much more complicated for the government.
But it’s very clear the next stage is going to be much more complicated for the government.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
