2/25 The key issues for the Commons to consider were:
(1) what do about resident owned (enfranchised) buildings
(2) what to do about under 11 metre buildings and
(3) whether leaseholders should pay anything for non-cladding costs.
3/25 The Lords moved in favour of leaseholders on all three issues, extending costs protection for buildings of all types of ownership and all heights.
The Lords also changed the Bill so that no leaseholder living in a flat worth less than £1 million had to pay anything.
4/25 The government sought to reverse all of these changes made by the Lords.
Those attempts to reverse the Lords were all successful.
Results below.
5/25 On the first issue of resident owned (enfranchised) buildings, the government has said it will open a consultation on how to protect leaseholders in enfranchised buildings.
We do not know the parameters of the review or when it will be conducted.
6/25 On the second issue (buildings under 11 metres) the government said that the extent of any problem did not justify extending protection to those buildings.
It promises a case-by-case review.
7/25 Leaseholders in u11m buildings are asked to write to Stuart Andrew at the Department for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities if they are asked to pay for any cladding or non-cladding remedial costs.
8/25 Issues one and two were voted on together.
The Commons voted by 316 to 188 to replace the Lords wording with its own and then by 318 to 189 that the Commons wording became part of the Bill.
10/25 The end result is that under 11 metre and enfranchised buildings (owned by residents) are excluded from the government's so-called waterfall.
11/25 They should still be protected by the government's recent deal with developers, expanded building control levy and by Building Safety Fund Mark II.
There will be uncertainty whilst the final details are being worked out.
12/25 As above, we will have to see what additional protections (and they are needed) will be given to people living in enfranchised buildings.
For the moment they are excluded from any legal protection on their service charges.
13/25 On the third issue of whether leaseholders should pay anything for non-cladding costs, the government succeeded in re-introducing contributions of £10,000 for flats worth more than £175,000 outside London and £15,000 for flats worth more than £325,000 inside London.
14/25 These contributions are only payable for non-cladding costs if developers and building owners do not pay.
Costs already paid toward waking watches, surveys and remedial works count toward the proposed caps.
15/25 The Commons voted by 317 to 190 to replace the Lords' wording with the government's wording and then by 318 to 188 to add the government's wording to the Bill.
The sole Conservative rebel was, again, @PBottomleyMP
17/25 The #buildingsafetybill now goes back to the House of Lords on 26 April, a process known as "ping pong".
Both Houses of Parliament must agree on the same text of each Bill.
Now that the Commons has made changes, the Lords must either accept or propose alternatives.
18/25 The Lords is not an elected body. It consists almost entirely of members appointed by the government for life.
The British constitution works on the basis that the unelected Lords defers to the will of the elected Commons.
19/25 Unfortunately, as is the case today, where the government has a large majority in the Commons, it means it can pretty much do as it pleases whether the Lords objects or not.
The best the Lords can do is slow things down and try to get the government to think again.
20/25 This Bill is unusual in that the government itself amended it extensively in the Lords to try and respond to rebellions by Conservative MPs in the Commons over this and the earlier Fire Safety Act.
21/25 As we saw today, there is no willingness among Conservatives in the Commons to vote through changes made by the Lords.
Conservatives did, however, say that they expect the government to further improve the support for leaseholders in secondary legislation.
22/25 The risk with that approach is that there are even fewer avenues for backbench MPs to change secondary legislation than there are for them to change Bills that become Acts of Parliament.
We have to trust that the government will continue to cooperate on further changes.
23/25 The above, and the upcoming end of the current session of Parliament, leaves the Lords with limited room for manoeuvre.
Will the Lords try again to protect leaseholders from costs, perhaps by halving the caps? Will they conclude that there is not much point trying?
24/25 It is not over for this law until it becomes an Act of Parliament, which is still a few weeks away.
The Bill must be passed before the end of the current session, or it will fall.
We will have to watch closely to see whether the Lords has any appetite for further changes.
25/25 The Lords' appetite is inevitably dictated by the limited options on the constitutional menu, but we may yet see further attempts to amend.
A mixed day for leaseholders, but still important to remember it is a better day than would have been the case this time last year.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It crunched through 276 amendments in about 7 hours of debate, so only a superficial review of a Bill that will have far reaching effects on residential buildings for the next 30-40 years, plus.
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.
As with all amendments, they may or may not be adopted as part of the final Building Safety Act.
We still watch the amendments to see where the Bill may go.
2/9 In addition to last week's amendment suggesting that the government consult on all new buildings having staircases that meet BS-5395-1, there are 2 further amendments, one from Lord Young of Cookham and one from Lord Blencathra.
3/9 Both Lords Young and Blencathra are Conservative peers.
It is harder for the government to argue against members of its own party than with Opposition peers.
As explained below, the nature of these amendments also puts pressure on the government to improve the Bill.