Thread by @LiamSpender

#buildingsafetybill Commons is now considering Lords Amendments.

The debate may last until around 4.30 today.

In simple terms, the government will ask the Commons to vote to remove certain changes made by the Lords and provides alternatives.

The #buildingsafetybill was amended heavily in the Lords.

A key change was to introduce legal protection for leaseholders in buildings 11 to 18 metres tall.

These protections are explained here: leaseholdknowledge.com/government-dum…

The legal protections are to spare leaseholders any costs for cladding remedial works.

Non-cladding works are also supposed to be paid for by developers or "building owners" in the first instance, under the so-called waterfall.

Where the developer and building owner does not pay for non-cladding works, leaseholders may be expected to pay capped contributions between £10,000 and £200,000 depending on the value of their flat.

These protections have been controversial because they do not apply to enfranchised buildings (those owned by residents) or to buy-to-let landlords with 4 or more properties.

The Lords took out these non-cladding caps (meaning leaseholders would pay nothing), and extended the protection to leaseholders living in enfranchised buildings.

The government will today try (and most likely succeed) in reversing these changes.

The government is also moving an amendment in lieu (in place of) a Lords amendment to require a cost-benefit analysis of certain fire safety measures by the Building Safety Regulator after 3 years.

This is a watered down version of a Lib Dem amendment in the Lords.

The government is also moving an amendment to catch trustees who own buildings on behalf of third parties (typically investment funds) so that they are obliged to pay for cladding and non-cladding works.

This is a welcome change.

Two Labour MPs (Clive Betts and @IanByrneMP) have also put down amendments exempting social landlords from the expanded levy on building control approval and requiring that levy to be used to be paid for repairs on their buildings.

The same MPs have tabled an amendment requiring pre-appointment scrutiny of the New Homes Ombudsman.

Unfortunately, since they are not moved by the government, none of these amendments are likely to get to a vote.

We expect a series of votes on the government's attempts to override the Lords in the Commons this afternoon.

Given the scale of the government's majority, it is very likely that these changes will be adopted by the Commons this afternoon.

The Bill will then go back to the Lords on 26 April 2022.

Both Houses of Parliament have to agree to the same text of each Bill.

If the Lords does not agree, the Bill will have to come back to the Commons for a further round.

Time is running out for this "ping pong" process between Lords and Commons because the current session of Parliament will end before 10 May.

If the Bill is not passed by then it will fall and the government will have to go back to square one in the next session.

We are currently listening to the Minister of State for Housing (@StuartAndrew ) explain the government's reasons for overriding the Lords' changes.

He has so far taken a lot of backbench interventions, including from MPs who attended the @EOCS_Official rally earlier.

The two significant things he has said so far are that the government will hold a consultation on how to deal with costs faced by leaseholders in enfranchised buildings.

That is welcome, but we need to see a result quickly.

The other significant thing is that he has given a warning that buildings under 11 metres should not be dragged into this scandal.

He hinted that the new regulator may be taking steps to stop this.

Again, welcome, but we need to see help for u11m buildings already caught up.

The amendments being considered today are here: publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…

The running order is here: publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…

It is disappointing to hear @StuartAndrew say that the government won't consider any changes to the non-cladding cost contributions.

This is said to be on the basis of the government's legal advice, which was demolished comprehensively in the Lords.

The government's view is that the deal announced with developers last week should mean that in many cases (the government hasn't given us any data) leaseholders will pay nothing for cladding and non-cladding costs and the waterfall will not run.

The government announcement last week of an expanded levy on building control applications is expected to produce £3 billion to deal with buildings where there is no responsible developer left standing.

Whilst welcome, we are missing a lot of the key details on how that scheme will work and fit in with the Bill.

We are long way further forward than where we were, but there are still important details to work through.

The Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee has written to Michael Gove asking for these very details today: committees.parliament.uk/publications/2…

Another issue is that the changes being discussed today are for England only. Scotland and Wales are to produce their own solutions.

We are shortly to hear from @mtpennycook, the Labour spokesman on housing.

@mtpennycook opens with a lament for the fact that the Bill has been a long time coming and heavily amended in the Lords.

Although the change in approach is welcome, this is no way to make laws. These changes should have been considered by the Commons.

And on this he is undoubtedly right.

There have been literally hundreds of amendments in the Lords, most considered for only a few minutes each.

Part 4 of the Bill - even without Building Safety Managers - will have huge repercussions for people living in > 18 metre buildings.

Says that it is important the new Building Safety Regulator is properly resourced so that it can do its job properly.

Says we need to see help for buildings of all heights, not just those above 11 metres.

There is no real data available on how many buildings there are under 11 metres and how badly affected they are.

The government's approach of a case-by-case review of such buildings is not enough.

@mtpennycook says that Labour will vote against the government's attempt to exclude sub-11 metre buildings from the cost protections.

Also says that enfranchised buildings must be protected.

The consultation the government promised earlier is welcome, but something concrete must be done to ensure that leaseholders who have done the right thing in taking control of their buildings.

Raises the issue of buildings held in trust by ground rent investors ("ground rent grazers"). Says the government amendment on trustee owned buildings is welcome, but is missing key details.

The issue here is that trustees are not caught by the government's waterfall structure for non-cladding costs because of the way the Bill is drafted.

Unless fixed, leaseholders living in those buildings will see the waterfall skip their landlord, by dint of legal structure.

@mtpennycook says that the non-cladding caps (the payments of between £10,000 and £200,000 per leaseholder) are inconsistent with the government's position that leaseholders should pay nothing.

The way the caps are structured will lead to shortfalls, how will they be covered?

Government must explain what happens if the waterfall operates and there is still not enough money to do the works once the caps are reached.

@mtpennycook concludes by saying that the Bill has improved a lot since it was first introduced last July, but there are still important details to fix before it becomes law.

@PBottomleyMP speaking now. Welcomes the changes made to the Bill and congratulates MPs and campaigners who have worked to raise the prominence of the issues, leading to the changes.

Says more mainstream media need dedicated housing editors to ensure these issues are not missed in the future.

Says that the Treasury has been a blocker in getting this issue sorted out for so long.

Says that the government should have prioritised finding and fixing affected buildings over perfecting the funding mechanism.

Says there is still doubt over who will undertake the necessary legal claims to pursue developers where funding is not forthcoming.

Says that it is welcome that the government has moved its position from leaseholders having to pay £15 billion to leaseholders being limited to capped cost contributions, if at all.

Says that we should not forget that the building safety crisis is also a leasehold crisis. The only reason we ended up here is because of the one-sided nature of the leasehold system.

Says there is much more to be done, including forcing insurers to disclose their commissions.

Clive Betts, Chair of the Select Committee that oversees DLUHC, the department responsible for the Bill speaking now.

Agrees on the need for wide-ranging leasehold reform to ensure that this never happens again.

Says that the innocent parties, leaseholders and social housing tenants, should not have to pay for repairs to be made to affected buildings.

Says he hopes that the government will improve the protections on offer for buildings of all heights.

Emphasises that we still need to see the detail of how the promises made in the Bill and in the government's recent press announcements will work building-by-building.

Says that leaseholders who have already paid are being excluded from help and this is "unjustifiable" because they have done the right thing.

Says that building insurers appear to have made money out of this crisis.

Says when the Association of British Insurers was asked to explain how much they have paid out on the back of increased premiums they could not answer.

The ABI claims that these increased premiums are being used to provide a capital reserve in case there are claims in the future.

Indeed, there is something of a mystery in why premiums have been rising.

The ABI position is difficult to square with the capital adequacy rules (Solvency II) and the difference between buildings covered under block policies and non-block policies.

As the ABI's witness himself admitted the other week, the cost of commissions is also a major determinant of the cost of multi-occupancy block insurance.

The FCA is supposed to be looking at this, and has asked brokers and insurers to provide data by 28 May.

Clive Betts also emphasises the fact that social housing tenants are bearing the costs of undertaking remedial works through increased rents and less money being spent on new housing.

Mike Penning, former Fire Safety Minister, speaking now. Welcomes the fact that the government belatedly changed course on the #buildingsafetybill

Says that the Bill is not perfect, but can be improved via secondary legislation, so he will vote in support of the government.

Also emphasises the role insurance companies and professional bodies have to play in ensuring that buildings are remediated.

Says that forcing them to take responsibility has been done before, in relation to mesothelioma claims caused by asbestos.

Indeed, Mike Penning was the minister that took that legislation forcing responsibility for asbestos-related claims through Parliament.

@hilarybennmp speaking now. Notes the radical transformation from the government's laissez-faire approach of having leaseholders pay to a much more hands-on approach of making developers and building owners pay.

@hilarybennmp says that we have come a long way thanks to efforts of MPs on all sides of the House, particularly Conservatives who were prepared to repel.

But the real credit goes to leaseholders who have refused to give up and continued to fight for fairness.

Says that the uncertainty is "not quite over yet" because there are still missing details as to how the proposed solution will work.

Says that the truth is we are dealing with buildings that were built badly and the situation was allowed to continue for far too long.

The fire at The Cube in Bolton shows the consequences of rapid fire spread resulting from such poor construction.

Asks why leaseholders are still being asked to pay anything at all.

Says that under 11 metre buildings should be included. The case-by-case approach proposed by the government on these buildings must be fleshed out.

Says that the caps proposed are an imperfect solution. What happens if there is a need for an ongoing waking watch where leaseholders have already reached the value of their caps?

Also raises the issue of Buy to Let landlords being excluded if they have 4 or more properties.

Says there is no logical reason why they should be excluded, they are also blameless.

If BTLs cannot pay it may mean the building will not be fixed, so everyone will suffer.

Says that the government's proposed waterfall is a complicated solution to the problem.

Says that there will be continuing uncertainty whilst people wait to see how the waterfall will operate.

@PBottomleyMP intervenes and thanks both @NLC_2019 and @LKPleasehold for their efforts in campaigning to protect leaseholders.

Also thanks @team_greenhalgh for listening to those groups and changing the government's course.

@hilarybennmp concludes by saying that he hopes the remaining issues can be resolved quickly and leaseholders can look forward to the day when they can wake up and not have to worry about these issues.

@BobBlackman notes the long-running nature of the issues and how leaseholders have suffered along the road to getting to this point.

Thanks the government for being prepared to make "dramatic changes" to the #buildingsafetybill

Says it is ironic that the Commons has more time to consider the issues today than it was allowed at Second Reading (last July).

Says this is not the end of the process. There will be secondary legislation coming along where further details will be worked out.

The secondary legislation is going to have to protect leaseholders.

This is really a polite warning to the government: the Bill will go through today but these MPs will continue watching and pushing leaseholders' interests.

Secondary legislation means laws other than Acts of Parliament. A common example is a Statutory Instrument.

These fill in details in laws (for example, setting the cash value of fines for speeding tickets).

Secondary legislation is often subject to much less scrutiny than Acts of Parliament, but given the importance of the issues to be decided in the Building Safety Bill secondary legislation perhaps more scrutiny than normal is to be expected.

@BobBlackman says that fixing affected buildings should not be at the expense of building more, urgently needed social housing. Nor should rents rise to fix issues in buildings developed by social housing providers.

Notes that sub-11 metre buildings can be just as dangerous as higher-rise buildings, particularly given that grouping lower-rise buildings together can result in the spread of fire across multiple buildings.

Says the risk of fire spread between lower-rise buildings grouped together should be "designed out" in the future.

Says that more people should exercise the right to enfranchise (to own their buildings) and commonhold should be encouraged.

Says that there is a risk that the Bill will make such options less attractive in the future.

@bobblackman repeats his warning that the secondary legislation setting out the detail of the Building Safety Bill will be scrutinised closely, but that he will support the passage of the Bill in the form the government wants today.

@libdemdaisy speaking now for the Liberal Democrats.

Commends the cladding campaigning groups for putting the issue on the map and extracting significant concessions from the government.

@libdemdaisy says that the government has not carried through on its principle that the innocent should not have to pay anything for fixing defects.

Says the caps being introduced by the government violate that principle.

Says the issue with the caps that they are only triggered if the government cannot find someone else to "carry the can"

There is no data to support the government's assertion that the majority of leaseholders will not have to pay.

@libdemdaisy says that another issue with the caps is how flats are to be valued for the purposes of deciding how much in capped costs is due (i.e. is it worth £325k or not?)

Calls on the government to open a consultation on this issue.

Says that if the valuation mechanism is not fixed then the government can expect various legal challenges.

Also calls for further detail on how the consultation on enfranchised properties will be carried out.

@libdemdaisy joins the calls for better protection for social housing tenants. Says that rents should not be increased to pay for buildings to be remediated.

Concludes by saying that the changes to the Bill so far are welcome, but we can expect "a slew" of detailed secondary legislation to fill in all of the missing details.

Says that too many issues remain to be addressed.

The lack of scrutiny of this important bill is "shameful"

@SMcPartland speaking now. Joins the welcome for the radical changes made to the Bill since January 2022.

Pays tribute to @ukcag, @EOCS_Official and @LKPleasehold and Cladiator Groups up and down the country for their tireless work in forcing the concessions from the government

@SMcPartland says his campaigning work will continue, including further discussions with the minister this morning.

Says that it is important we have proportionate assessments of risk before embarking on remedial works.

Emphasises the need for continuing cross-party work on this issue.

Says that leaseholders have suffered enough with the building safety scandal and COVID restrictions and it is important these issues are resolved as soon as possible.

Mentions the Vista Tower building in his constituency and the importance of resolving the trustee issue. That is an example of a building held in a trust structure, so the issue must be fixed.

Says the fight will move on to ensuring secondary legislation makes this bill work.

Priority is to make buildings safe as soon as possible. Debates in the Commons will not achieve that.

@SMcPartland says he will support the government's position today, subject to ensuring that the waterfall arrangement works in practice.

Expects developers to be held responsible for buildings they have constructed before leaseholders pay anything.

Says that at the Vista Tower most leaseholders have already reached the capped contributions, so it comes down to holding the developer responsible.

Says that the capped contributions from leaseholders are an imperfect solution, but better than an uncapped bill.

Capping the leaseholder contributions and making them the last resort has restored some value to affected properties.

@JanetDaby speaking now. Notes that we are approaching 5 years since the Grenfell Tower fire and leaseholders have waited too long for a solution.

Refers to the Parkside development in her constituency in Lewisham. Says leaseholders there have had years of uncertainty, only recently being given tentative assurances by Peabody, Ardmore and Rydon that they would not have to pay anything.

Says this is an unacceptable situation. Doubts that if the people making the tentative assurances were living in places like Parkside that matters would have gone on this long.

Says the result is leaseholder lives being put on hold.

Says all leaseholders need to know when works will start; when their buildings will be made safe.

@Royston_Smith joins in thanking the government for the changes made to the Bill.

Adds his congratulations to the cladding groups who have pursued the issue so doggedly and for so long.

Says that there are still details to be worked out. Welcomes the commitments made by the minister for a consultation on how to help enfranchised buildings.

Says he will support the government today, but expects that details will continue to be worked out in secondary legislation

@Royston_Smith says that the focus is still on insurers, who must contribute to solving the problem once and for all.

@PBottomleyMP intervenes and says the government should hold a roundtable discussion with insurers to force them to pay.

@Royston_Smith says that developers have belatedly taken responsibility for their own buildings.

It is important to get other people to contribute their faire share of the costs. Forcing all of the costs onto developers may result in unintended consequences.

@PaulBlomfieldMP speaking now. Says that he welcomes the changes made by the government, but says it is unacceptable it has taken so long to get to this point.

Raises examples of buildings in his constituency that are still not fixed, including Riverside.

Riverside was evacuated by the fire service and is a leaseholder run building. The consultation must ensure that residents in such buildings are protected.

Notes in that case that the freeholder was unable to show it was spending service charge money collected from residents on that building.

Says that minister must set out exactly what the consultation on enfranchised buildings will cover. Will it cover buildings with the Right To Manage? Will all leaseholders have the same protection?

@RLong_Bailey speaking now. Welcomes the fact that the government has belatedly accepted the principle that leaseholder should not pay.

Says the legal protections on offer are still inadequate.

Congratulates @McrCladiators on their work on campaigning.

Notes that there are too many buildings in Salford that seem likely to fall between the cracks in the government's proposal.

Remains a huge question mark over social housing tenants.

It is unclear what leaseholders who have already been sent bills should do.

There is no help for those leaseholders who have already been forced to pay for waking watch, for remediation works.

@RLong_Bailey concludes by saying that the promise made by the government in January has not been carried through.

Leaseholders are still on the hook to pay and the government should support the amendments to reduce leaseholder contributions to zero.

@FloEshalomi speaking now. Welcomes the changes but notes the delay in reaching this point.

Emphasises that there is still not enough protection for disabled leaseholders, particularly in terms of assistance in being evacuated.

Pays tribute to the cladding campaign groups for their efforts.

Says that "this crisis will not end until leaseholders are exempted from all fire safety costs"

Says leaseholders are still on the hook to pay £15,000 or more.

Will support Lords amendment to reduce leaseholder contributions to zero.

Says it is "neither right nor fair" that some leaseholders have to pay whilst others do not.

Leaseholders should not have to pay at all.

Regardless of building height.

@StuartAndrew starts his winding-up speech, which means we are approaching the promised votes.

Thanks all members for their contributions.

Apologies for the fact that the Bill was still being amended as recently as yesterday.

@StuartAndrew Also pays tribute to the campaign groups who have persevered in pushing this issue.

Responds to amendments from Clive Betts and Ian Byrne to except social housing providers from having to pay, instead requiring new building control levy money to be used.

Says the government will not accept these amendments because social housing providers who have developed buildings must take responsibility for defects.

Also emphasises the fact that the expectation is that developers should pay in all cases.

Clive Betts intervenes and asks what happens where the developer is no longer in business.

The reply from Stuart Andrew is that the issue of how to deal with social housing providers is "still being worked on"

Clive Betts asks Stuart Andrew to appear before the select committee to explain progress. Mr. Andrew says he could not possibly refuse that invitation.

@BobBlackman also asks for a commitment that developers will be held responsible for social housing, which the minister confirms.

@StuartAndrew says that anyone living in an under 11 metre building that is asked to pay for remediation works should write to the Department.

He says the Department will want to question closely any freeholder who proposes such works on u11m buildings.

@PBottomleyMP intervenes and says that the legal claims against developers, under the Defective Premises Act, will only be made if leaseholders meet the costs.

That is not good enough and the government must come up with a better solution.

Stuart Andrew says he will ask his officials to look at legal costs again.

@StuartAndrew says that the government's proposal on valuing flats for the purposes of the caps is to take the last sale price and to update in line with the House Price Index produced by the Land Registry / ONS.

Says that the approach is not perfect, but will avoid unnecessary uncertainty and costs.

@libdemdaisy says that is not good enough. We may see flats next door to each other given widely different values.

Stuart Andrew says he understands the issue raised on valuation and has committed to write to @libdemdaisy and other MPs with answers on the detailed questions posed.

And with that we start the voting on the Bill.

The first few government amendments are accepted without a division.

The Commons has just started voting on the government's amendment to Lords Amendment 94.

The Lords version of the bill extended the protection to buildings of all heights.

The government is asking the Commons to vote to limit the protection to only buildings above 11 metres or with more than 5 storeys.

We expect the results of the vote in about 10 minutes.

The government is likely to get its way on this today.

And the Lords amendment is overridden by 316 to 188.

Protection for cladding and non-cladding costs is limited to buildings above 11 metres or with more than 5 storeys.

The government promises a case-by-case review of buildings under 11 metres / or with less than 5 storeys.

The minister also asked that anyone living in a building under 11 metres / under 5 storeys tall who is asked to pay for remediation should write to his department with details.

And now we have a further vote on whether to pass the amendment as the government wants it amended (as above).

Results in about 10 minutes, but it is a foregone conclusion that we will see a similar number of votes in support.

Interestingly they have gone back to physical voting in the Commons.

You can see MPs walking into the division lobbies that run either side of the Chamber.

By walking through the "Aye" or "No" lobbies, MPs cast their votes for or against.

I say it is interesting they have gone back to physical voting because the House of Lords (where the average age of members is over 70) has stuck with Digital voting adopted during the coronavirus pandemic.

As expected, the Commons amendment is adopted 318 to 189.

Costs protection is therefore only included for buildings at least 11 metres tall or with at least 5 storeys.

There is to be a case-by-case review of buildings under those heights if leaseholders asked to pay.

Stuart Andrew also said that any leaseholder in an under 11 metre building asked to pay for cladding or other remedial works should write to his department with details.

The government says it will have questions for the building owner to answer.

Next up is the trusts amendment (which would mean landlords who are trustees are caught in the costs protection waterfall).

That goes through on the nod, without a vote.

We will have a few more amendments that will go through on technical, tidying matters that will go through on the nod.

Further divisions will follow on the leaseholder cost caps and other issues.

We are approaching the vote to override Lords Amendment 184.

The Lords voted to prevent leaseholders in flats under £1 million from paying anything for non-cladding costs.

The government is going to override this.

Commons voting on whether to substitute its wording for the Lords wording.

Result in about 10 minutes.

We will then have another vote on whether the Commons wording should stand as part of the Bill.

As expected, the Commons votes 317 to 190 to accept the government's wording on cost caps for non-cladding costs.

Commons now voting on whether this wording should form part of the Bill.

Results in about 10 minutes, although another foregone conclusion.

As expected, Commons votes 318 to 188 to reinstate leaseholder contributions of £10,000 (£15,000 inside London) toward non-cladding costs, provided flat over £175,000 (£325k in London).

These contributions only payable if developer or building owner does not pay.

We move on to the government's attempt to override Lords amendment 6 (requiring the Building Safety Regulator to conduct a cost benefit analysis of safety mitigation measures within 3 years of the Bill being passed.

This goes through on the nod, without a vote.

Proceedings conclude with a series of other amendments (of a minor technical nature) go through without a vote.

Proceedings on the Lords amendment conclude.

The Commons goes on to to consider Lords amendments on the Nationality and Borders Bill.

The #buildingsafetybill goes back to the Lords on 26 April. The Lords will decide whether to accept the Commons amendments or not.

Given the lack of any rebellion among Conservative MPs this afternoon, there is limited political cover for the Lords to attempt further amendments to the #BuildingSafetyBill

The Lords would only get anywhere if there were Conservative MPs in the Commons willing to support.

Unfortunately, there is no sign of that, so it looks like the end of the road for further attempts to amend.

We will see what is said over the next few days on the approach the Lords may adopt on 26 April.