Thread by @LiamSpender

#buildingsafetybill thread.

I will post my thoughts (for what they are worth) on the Report stage debate here.

The Report stage will be in two halves.

The first half started at 11 and has just reached its first vote (division).

The second half will start around 3.15.

This morning's session has seen relatively little change to the Bill.

The government has adopted Lord Best's amendment on articles of association, making it easier for RTM / RMC companies to appoint a designated director as accountable person.

Lord Stunell, a Liberal Democrat peer, has just forced a division (vote) on his amendment no. 8.

That requires the new Building Safety Regulator to review the costs and benefits of sprinklers and measures to help disabled people.

We should have the result in about 10 minutes.

I share the concerns of many other lawyers watching this bill that the avalanche of amendments now being proposed have not had even the chance of proper scrutiny.

They are complicated, complex and represent major changes.

There will inevitably be litigation.

I do, however, welcome the fact that at least the present set of ministers is trying to solve the problem.

I hope that there is still room for progress on both the language of the bill and how it will be implemented in practice.

Excellent speeches so far in favour of better protection for leaseholders from @BishopStAlbans (read by Lord Blencathra), Lord Young of Cookham and @Fox_Claire.

And the result of the vote is a government defeat 176 to 151.

Amendment 8 passes.

Full list of amendments here: bills.parliament.uk/publications/4…

We continue with the rest of the Bill. We are up to amendment no. 15 of 274.

Thankfully they can be moved and debated in large groups, but that means only limited scrutiny of each.

The proceedings on the #buildingsafetybill have now been adjourned until roughly 3.30, after question time.

When proceedings resume, we expect to start with another vote.

We are yet to reach the part of interest to most leaseholders, the cost protection measures. They will come up sometime after 3.30 today.

We can expect several votes over the course of the afternoon and evening.

#BuildingSafetyBill proceedings have just resumed.

Link to watch here: parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/60…

The Lords are now considering the leaseholder protection amendments.

Lord Young of Cookham is speaking to his amendment to create a remediator of last resort, which require either a local authority or the government to step in to force remedial works to be done.

Lord Young has given the example of @Northpoint20 as a good example of the confusion of who will pay if the government's proposed waterfall produces no money.

Earl Lytton is now speaking to his proposed wrapper amendments (the "polluter pays") amendments.

Lord Greenhalgh is summing up the debate on this enormous group of 70 amendments.

We can expect some speeches in reply, followed by a series of votes as opposition peers attempt to amend the #buildingsafetybill

Lord G. is dreaming if he thinks the FTT or the reasonableness test is an adequate protection for leaseholders.

Landlords/MAs get to use leaseholders' money to defend themselves.

It is up to leaseholders to prove costs are unreasonable.

The Landlord normally wins if it proves it pays a rate that exists in the market, regardless of whether it is the highest possible rate paid to a connected company.

The only concession the government appears to make in this group is that it will not charge the Building Safety Regulator levy on councils or social landlords.

@Fox_Claire now speaking on her amendment no. 26, which would require the government to review the financial impact of the new accountable person regime.

Earl of Lytton now speaking to amendment 115, which would extend protection to buildings of all heights, regardless of whether they are owned by residents (enfranchised).

Warns we can expect a division (vote) on this amendment.

Lord Young now speaking on amendment 115. He reiterates the need for buildings of all heights to be protected.

A defect is a defect, regardless of height.

Lord Young offers up his alternative proposals on the caps, that either they should be cut in half, or else calculated as a percentage of the property, so everyone pays the same proportion.

Also refers to his amendment on how value is to be assessed for the purposes of the caps.

Lord Young says his preference is that leaseholders pay zero, or else get a much better deal under the caps.

@BishopStAlbans speaking to his amendment to give residents affected by orders made under the Fire Safety Order the right to appeal, if they have to pay the costs.

Currently this right is open only to the Responsible Person, who may not be under the residents' control.

@KathPinnock emphasises the importance of protecting leaseholders and says that the government can expect several votes on alternative proposals to protect leaseholders this evening.

Lord Marks (a Lib Dem peer and QC) explaining why he disagrees with the government's view that A1P1 requires leaseholders to make some contributions to non-cladding costs.

In simple terms, Lord Marks says that the A1P1 argument does not work because the government is not taking property from freeholders.

It may be limiting the ways freeholders can use their property, but this is allowed to achieve a legitimate public policy aim.

Lords Marks says the government could defeat any challenge by freeholders because the government's aim is legitimate and is not being enforced arbitrarily.

Says he doubts monetary contributions from leaseholders change the balance of the argument, except perhaps against the gov.

Lord Marks says it is possible to introduce a scheme that requires zero contribution from leaseholders.

Says European Court of Human Rights affords states a "margin of appreciation" in making laws to further legitimate aims.

Lords Marks continues says that if freeholders feel their is an unfair burden on them then they may litigate.

But that is how the commercial world works

(In fact, freeholders have twice sued the U.K. and twice lost under A1P1 over both the 1967 and 1993 leasehold reforms).

Retired Supreme Court judge Lord Hope now speaking on A1P1.

Says he agrees entirely with Lord Marks.

Lord Hope agrees that there is only a "very remote" prospect of freeholders successfully suing the government, even if leaseholder contributions are reduced to zero.

Lord Blencathra speaking on the dangers of leaving under 11 metres out of the government's proposed protections.

Says it is unfair to leave leaseholders out based on height.

Lord Blencathra is also speaking to his amendment that would protect Buy to Let landlords with up to 5 properties.

Quotes an example in Salford of a landlord with 9 properties in one building worth c. £800,000, in negative equity, with £250k in service charges.

Lord Blencathra says that it cannot be right that someone with one flat worth £800,000 pays £15k whilst someone with property of an equivalent value has to pay per flat.

Says that he will support the change to a percentage based system, unless the zero contribution amendment passes.

Lord Blencathra concludes by saying that the government is being offered at least 4 different alternatives on leaseholder caps today (plus some free legal advice).

It should be able to do something to improve the position of leaseholders.

@Fox_Claire also speaking on the changes to leaseholder caps.

Says that leaseholders in u11m buildings are still being charged even though the gov't says that they are low risk.

@Fox_Claire says that being a leaseholder is no longer a description, it is a full time job in trying to fend off ever more demands for money.

Says that it is important to adopt amendment 165A, which if there are going to be leaseholder caps would require a more subtle test of leaseholders' means to pay.

Of course, will support amendments that leaseholders pay zero.

Reels off a list of flats whose market values have not kept pace with inflation because of the plunge in values caused by post-14 June 2017 changes to fire safety policy.

@Fox_Claire also says that if the #buildingsafetybill increases service charges and imposes these caps then we could be making entire categories of flats unsaleable.

Baroness Hayman (Labour's spokesperson) says that it is wrong to charge leaseholders who have done nothing wrong.

Says Labour will support the zero contribution amendments, proposals to help enfranchised buildings and proposals to reduce the caps.

Lord Greenhalgh now responding, but says that the government will not be accepting any amendments to the leaseholder caps.

A vote now seems inevtiable.

Says the government has already improved the package on offer to the best extent it can.

Says the leaseholder caps will only be triggered in a minority of cases.

Says vulnerable leaseholders are already protected, for example by spreading the costs over 10 years.

Lord Cormack asks how many will pay and how much.

Lord Greenhalgh replies and says he cannot say, but he believes the overall package is fair.

Lord Greenhalgh says that he has listened to Lord Marks and Lord Hope, but says he prefers the opinion of the government's lawyers, so won't be accepting any changes.

Lord Greenhalgh says that the valuation mechanism will compare properties like for like on when they were last sold.

Still unclear how the valuation mechanism will work.

Lord G. appears to be saying that A1P1 is not the reason behind the leaseholder caps, but is something done in order to be "fair to all parties" involved.

Lord G. says landlords should not be undertaking costly works on buildings under 11 metres.

Lord G. repeats the gov't view that protections transfer from anyone eligible on 14 February to buyers.

That cannot be right. Look at clause 121 and the definition of "relevant tenant".

If it is right, expect a lot of cash buyers to start queuing to buy qualifying leases.

Says government will look at trustee issue, but continues rattling through other amendments he says the government will not accept.

Earl Lytton replying on amendment 115 (to extend protection to enfranchised buildings) and summing up all the points made in favour of leaseholders.

And we move to a vote on amendment no. 115, which is to extend protection to buildings of all heights.

We can expect the result in about 10 minutes.

Amendments here: bills.parliament.uk/publications/4…

And the result is a defeat for the government 156 to 123, so amendment no. 115 passes.

The Bill is theoretically extended to cover buildings of all heights.

However, this is likely to be removed by the House of Commons next month.

Both Houses have to agree on the text.

The government has no majority in the Lords so can be defeated like this (as it was earlier today).

In the Commons the government has a large majority and more control over the agenda.

That means it can both defeat things and stop them coming to a vote.

The Report stage continues.

Lord Young has just forced a vote on his amendment no. 117 to extend protection (caps etc) to enfranchised buildings.

We should have the result in about 10 minutes.

Again, whilst this amendment likely to pass, the government is likely to remove it from the Bill when it goes back to the Commons.

Interesting to see if the government makes concessions later

Lord Young is a Tory grandee. His rebelling means the gov't has a serious problem.

Votes from the first vote on the Bill today here: votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Di… (gov defeated 176-151)

Second vote results here: votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Di… (gov defeated 156-123)

Results from the latest vote due in about 5 minutes.

The result is amendment 117 passes 146 - 114, the third government defeat on this bill today.

Theoretically this means enfranchised buildings are now included, but likely to be tossed in the Commons.

Will the gov't make concessions when it comes back to the Lords?

Baroness Hayman (for Labour) has just forced her amendment no. 155 to a vote.

This amendment sets the caps to zero, meaning leaseholders would pay nothing for costs.

Results in about 10 minutes.

Result from the third division today here: votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Di…

Number of Conservative rebels increased by 1 (Ken Clarke joined in breaking the whip on this one).

Results of the division on amendment no. 155 (setting leaseholder caps to zero for non-cladding costs) is another defeat for the government, the fourth defeat today.

Government defeated 137 - 123.

This can be removed in the Commons, but will the gov't make concessions?

Personally, I am not holding my breath.

I sat live tweeting repeated rounds of ping-pong between Lords and Commons this time last year.

We have had a change of personnel, but the Treasury is still not handing out the necessary cash.

And we are back to debating.

The Lords is now considering the penultimate group of amendments, which deal with future construction product regulations.

No votes expected on this part of the Bill.

Actually, this is the last group. I didn't spot a comma between two of the amendment numbers.

So, no more votes tonight. The rest of the Bill will clear report "on the nod".

Actually, scratch that too.

We are expecting more votes this evening.

Currently a division on amendment no. 221, which would ban any developer who has not fixed all buildings for which they are responsible in 5 years from getting planning permission.

Results in 10 minutes.

The first victory for the the government this evening, 121 - 59

So the ban on planning permission does not pass.

The last series of votes (although it may only be one vote, depending on how this goes) is on the first of the Earl of Lytton's revised "polluter pays" amendments.

Results in 10 minutes.

And the result is amendment 234 (the polluter pays amendment) is defeated 117 to 94, so the amendment does not become a part of the Bill.

The rest of the amendments package is not moved.

Interestingly, although little noticed, the government has adopted another of the McPartland-Smith proposals created a compulsory warranty scheme, backed by insurance, for all new homes.

Which is a welcome development.

And there we have it, the end of Report stage on this Bill.

Will post a separate thread shortly summarising thoughts on today.