1/15 #BuildingSafetyBill with everything else going on today, I expect this will fall down the headlines.
Starting at roughly 2 p.m. this afternoon the Commons will conduct the Report and Third Reading stages of the Bill.
2/15 Unfortunately due to work commitments this afternoon, I won't be able to live tweet the proceedings.
Here is a thread with some details on what is happening today.
3/15 Report and Third Reading are the final stages of Commons consideration.
After today, the Bill will move on to the House of Lords where it will go through its stages there (First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading).
5/15 The timing of today is that Report must be completed by 6 p.m. today.
Amendments adding new clauses and schedules and Part 5 of the Bill will be dealt with first (to 4 p.m.)
From 4-6 the rest of the Bill will be considered.
3rd Reading will follow, to be completed by 7.
6/15 Very little has changed with the wording of the Bill since it completed its Committee stage in October 2021.
We have, of course, heard Michael Gove's announcement last week that he expects developers to pay to cover cladding and fire safety risks in all buildings above 11m.
7/15 In terms of actual changes to the text, the government has tabled amendments to extend the period for bringing claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years (15 years for future buildings).
This is welcome, but unlikely to be of use to most leaseholders.
8/15 The government has also tabled changes to the to the special measures regime, which a building can be put into by the new Building Safety Regulator if the accountable person(s) do not carry out their duties properly.
9/15 These changes are slight improvements for leaseholders. The changes require more financial details to be given regarding the regulator's plan for any special measures.
The amendments also give powers to the gov't to give grants and loans to a building in special measures.
10/15 The government has also tabled changes to the future building safety charge, which extend protection from forfeiture to that charge.
The issue is that the charge remains in the Bill, but the protection from forfeiture is welcome.
11/15 The real issue is that Michael Gove's promise to leaseholders is not yet written into the draft law.
We are promised that this commitment will be written into the Bill during its passage through the House of Lords.
12/15 One of the key things to watch for today is whether the government gives any more details of how it proposes to protect leaseholders and its proposed changes in the Lords.
13/15 Both Lords and Commons will have to agree on the same text of the Bill before it can become law.
If the government does as it promises and changes the Bill in the Lords, it will have to come back to the Commons to be agreed.
14/15 If the government does not do what it promises in the Lords, leaseholders will (rightly) be expecting MPs to challenge the government when the Bill comes back to the Commons later this Spring.
For what they are worth, my views on today's announcement are below.
The headline is that this is a welcome step in the right direction, but we must see the detail on delivery to be sure it will solve all cladding and non-cladding issues.
2/17 The positive development is that the focus is now squarely on building developers and material manufacturers to produce money to remediate cladding and non-cladding defects on buildings 11-18 metres tall.
Developers are being told to pay to fix all their buildings 11m+
3/17 This shift of focus, including a commitment that the government will prioritise building safety over the supply of new houses, is a big change in policy.
Previously the debate was framed in terms of taxpayer v. leaseholder.
2/7 The £1 billion figure above also may not be strictly related to cladding costs. For example, a large part of Barratt's provision appears to relate to defective concrete frames, legal costs and the costs of buying back flats.
3/7 According to Note 3.6 to Barratt's 2021 financial statements, of its total provision of £67.6 million for building safety issues, £26 million (38%) still relates to Citiscape (defective frame).
It is unclear if that £26 million is included in the £1 billion number above.
I personally stand to pay £1,358.50, which is an inflated figure to pay FirstPort's fees and because its a crap negotiator.
2/14 So far, in exchange for their £34,000-odd fee they have:
1/ Copied and pasted a specification of works prepared by a contractor.
The copy and paste job is so bad that they have copied into the document "(C) SCCI AlphaTrack Page 5"
3/14
2/ They then did not upload the specification of works to the FirstPort MyHome website, as twice promised. It took about 2 weeks to get it out of them.
3/ The Major Works team hasn't conducted a tender. They're recycling quotes obtained by the onsite staff
2/9 Richard Lloyd -- backed by huge litigation funder Therium -- sought to issue a group claim against Google seeking damages on behalf of around 4 million affected users.
The claim was put on an "opt-out" basis, meaning people would be included without having to sign up.
3/9 Mr. Lloyd's case was that each individual user had suffered damage as a result of Google's activities, but that it was not necessary to prove the amount of damage for each individual user because they would all claim the same amount of damages.
The Commons voted 250-232 to delay considering the report on sanctioning Owen Paterson for paid advocacy (mainly failing to declare he was a paid lobbyist for food products firms when approaching gov't departments and regulators)
2/13 MPs also voted to establish a new committee to consider whether to set up a new system for investigating complaints about MPs' conduct.
MPs then voted 248-221 for this new system, and the delay to Mr. Paterson's case, to take effect.
3/13 The remedy above is not available to any ordinary citizen.
If you are convicted of a crime and the law changes, you don't get a retrial unless there is some reason to doubt the original decision under the law as it applied at the time.
1/7 #forcedloans Horrified to see Homes England advertising for an 18 month fixed term employee to oversee development of loans for 11-18 metre buildings (advert here: homesenglandcareers.co.uk/search/657)
2/7 #forcedloans would see innocent leaseholders pay the full cost of cladding works, plus interest. That is unjust.
If there are any non-cladding defects, then leaseholders would have to stump up the full costs AND pay these loans. Work may still not get done.
3/7 Of course, we have only the sketchy details the government has given so far. But that limited detail suggests that #forcedloans will not work, for some or all of the reasons below.