Thread by @LiamSpender

#buildingsafetybill The Lords is currently voting on amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill and then it will move on to the Building Safety Bill.

It looks as if there may be a few more votes before we reach the Building Safety Bill, so perhaps 30 minutes before the start

You can watch proceedings live here:

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9c…

Given that the Lords proceedings are likely to run late tonight (there are two more bills with Commons amendments for the Lords to consider after the Building Safety Bill is done), it is possible there may be a short recess before we start.

The amendments being considered this evening on the #buildingsafetybill are here: bills.parliament.uk/publications/4…

Explainer thread from yesterday here:

https://twitter.com/LiamSpender/status/1518665031579320326?s=20&t=uT7OIAEFknp_rbVPQUrqcQ

The Lords is still voting on the Nationality and Borders Bill.

We are down to the last 4 amendments on that bill, not all of which will be put to a vote.

The current division (vote) lasts until 7.15, so we are unlikely to see a start on the #buildingsafetybill until after 7.30.

The Lords is now holding its last vote on the Nationality and Borders Bill.

That will last until 7.45.

Proceedings on the #buildingsafetybill will then start straight after, likely around 7.50 or 7.55.

#buildingsafetybill

Lords has just started to consider Commons amendments.

@team_greenhalgh speaking now and outlining the government's position.

Says government will not agree to extend protection to under 11 metre buildings because there is no evidence of any systemic risk.

Says that the government is aware of only a handful of buildings u11m being put up for remediation.

@team_greenhalgh says that if anyone living in a u11m building is asked to pay for remediation then they should write to DLUHC.

Says that he personally has already intervened in once case (Mill Court).

Says that government has sympathy for RMC/RTM/enfranchised buildings but thinks the amendment proposed to bring them back in scope would be ineffective.

Government says it will consult on how to deal with enfranchised buildings and bring forward alternative cost protections.

Says that government will not accept the attempt to reduce leaseholder contributions under the waterfall to £250, which is one of the amendments proposed this evening.

So, this is all entirely as expected.

@team_greenhalgh makes the point that the government has already moved a significant distance on these issues.

Expectation is that developers will pay under the deal recently announced, or the promised orphan buildings levy.

Says that the "vast majority" of leaseholders in affected buildings will either pay nothing, or pay much less than the caps of between £10,000 and £100,000 the government wants to re-insert into the Bill.

Lord Stunell speaking now on the amendment to require the Building Safety Regulator to conduct a review of the effectiveness of fire suppression systems like sprinklers within 3 years of the BSR starting work.

Welcomes the fact that the government has accepted this amendment.

Lord Young of Cookham thanks @team_greenhalgh for his work on improving the Bill, including negotiating with developers at the same time as inserting complex amendments into the Bill.

Notes that developer deal is restricted to "life safety critical" work.

Asks @team_greenhalgh to confirm that this definition, which appears narrower than that in the Bill, will not result in necessary works not being done by developers.

Emphasises the need to do something about enfranchised blocks.

Asks for details of the timetable of the government's consultation, noting that time is of the essence for leaseholders.

Says he hopes enfranchised leaseholders will be subject to caps on their contributions in the same way as non-enfranchised leaseholders.

Asks how the "orphan buildings" (ones with no traceable or solvent developer) will be dealt with.

Notes that u11m buildings can be as dangerous as taller buildings, cites example of @RH_residents burning down in under 15 minutes.

Asks when we will get details of costs protection on a case-by-case basis for u11m buildings.

Mentions his (and Lord Blencathra's) amendment to halve the proposed leaseholder caps.

Notes @LabourLordsUK have proposed an amendment to reduce leaseholder contributions to no more than £250.

Says if that amendment is rejected by the government, then he expects the government

to take up his proposal of halving the caps before the Bill becomes law.

Baroness Hayman speaking now.

Says that whilst the Bill has been improved, it is still not good enough.

There are too many buildings left behind. No help is offered to those who have already paid bills.

Baroness Hayman says that if the government's argument that very few people will have to pay anything why can better costs protection not be offered?

Says government's position that leaseholders should have to pay capped contributions is not going to protect the most vulnerable leaseholders.

It is also not an equitable proposal.

Says she will force a vote on limiting leaseholder contributions to no more than £250.

Lord Blencathra speaking now. Notes his interest as someone potentially affected by the Bill because he owns a flat that may require non-cladding remedial works.

Thanks government for its work on the Bill.

Raises the issue of the developer deal. Cautions that the government should expect developers to "throw millions of lawyers" at trying to wriggle out of what they have signed.

Cites recent comments made by the head of Galliard (thetimes.co.uk/article/builde…)

Raises the issue of the limit of 3 Buy To Let properties to qualify for costs protection.

Says this is not good enough because a billionaire with 2 flats in Mayfair gets full help whilst a pensioner with 4 flats gets not help.

Lord Blencathra says he believes that the government's proposed £10,000 to £100,000 caps strike a proportionate balance.

Says that distinguished lawyers in the House of Lords agree that the caps are not necessary to avoid a challenge by developers on Human Rights grounds.

Says that he hopes the government will bring forward a compromise amendment on the caps.

Says at this late stage "one more heave" will result in more success than met Jeremy Thorpe (former Liberal leader) in 1974 (when he predicted the Liberals could get into office).

Baroness Neville-Rolfe speaking now.

Says that the "logjam" in relation to u11m buildings has eased because of a more flexible approach to fire safety.

Says that it is not justified to take discretionary powers to deal with u11m buildings and more time should be given to see if the current market approach solves the issue for those buildings.

Warns of unintended consequences.

@Fox_Claire speaking now.

Welcomes the fact that the Lords has been listened to, at least to some extent, on the Bill.

Emphasises plight of BTL landlords with more than 3 properties. Says that they were advised to make their own pension provision by buying property.

Says that the issue of u11m buildings is complicated because if government reduces height threshold it may result in unintended consequences because then every building would be put up for funded remediation.

Welcomes the government's promise of a case-by-case review of u11m buildings, including asking leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres to write to the DLUHC if they are asked to pay for remedial works.

Emphasises the need for the government to get on with its consultation on enfranchised buildings as soon as possible.

Says that despite promises of listening to leaseholders, many feel that they have been left without a voice.

Says that she will vote to support Labour's limit of £250 on leaseholder contributions because she wants to push the government on this issue one last time.

Says that building safety issues have been focussed on at the potential expense of not addressing a housing shortage.

Says the current trend of fewer flats being built, particularly in London, is partly a result of the building safety crisis highlighting the pitfalls of l-hold.

Says she looks forward to the promised further Leasehold Reform bills.

Earl of Lytton speaking now.

He has not put down an amendment to add Polluter / Perpetrator pays to the Bill but has not moved a further amendment today.

Agrees that the Bill has improved but still has problems with funding.

Says he is unsure on what basis the government claims that there is no systemic risk in relation to u11m properties.

Says without data it is impossible to tell what needs to be done in those buildings, whether that is sprinklers, alarms or otherwise.

Says that it is important things such as sprinklers and other measures are not used as a workaround for serious compartmentation issues in buildings of all heights.

Doubts the legality of the government enforcing its deal with developers by denying planning permission.

Says one of the reasons polluter / perpetrator pays was rejected was because it was retrospective and went around the Limitation Act.

Says that legal challenges to the Bill are likely because it does similar things as proposed by polluter / perpetrator pays, such as making developers liable for buildings built in the last 30 years instead of the last 6.

Earl of Lytton says government must do more to deliver on its promise that leaseholders are innocent and must be spared from costs.

Thanks colleagues in House of Lords and leaseholder campaigners for their work to keep the issue high on the government's agenda.

@natalieben speaking now. Welcomes the fact that the Earl of Lytton and others will be keeping the issue of leaseholder protection on the agenda.

Says leaseholders are not only innocent, they are also the injured parties. They have suffered greatly.

Says that leaseholders are victims of successive governments' failure to regulate the building industry properly, allowing it to be turned into a cash cow.

Says that leaseholders should not be treated differently based on the height of their building.

@KathPinnock speaking now.

Echoes @natalieben closing comment that the Bill has been transformed but that more needs to be done.

Says leaseholders are blameless and it is morally wrong that they should have to pay the costs of others' mistakes.

Says issue is that Bill still expects some leaseholders to pay.

Says she wants the government to think again.

Takes issue with government's A1P1 argument that a balance has to be struck between leaseholder interests and developer / landlord interests.

Says that at Report stage Lord Marks and Lord Hope, a Q.C. and a former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, systematically dismantled the government's argument on A1P1.

Says that a better balance, more in favour of leaseholders, can and should be struck.

Says that under 11 metre buildings should be brought within the scope of the costs protection.

Reiterates example of @RH_residents burning down in 11 minutes.

Says that @team_greenhalgh can expect to be held to account for his promise that u11m buildings should get in touch with DLUHC to report any requests for payment, as will the leaseholders in those buildings.

Laments the fact that minister has admitted tonight that some leaseholders will still have to pay, even though they are blameless.

Says that it is a failure of political leadership to make leaseholders pay anything.

@KathPinnock says she will support @LabourLordsUK amendment to cap leaseholder contribution to £250.

@team_greenhalgh responding now.

Says that the government believes its changes to the Bill will restore proportionality to the system.

Says that consultation on how to deal with enfranchised buildings will begin "as soon as possible"

Responding to Labour proposal to limit cap to £250 and Liberal Democrat amendment to limit the caps to zero.

Says that neither amendment is acceptable, according to the government's legal advice that there has to be a proportionate approach.

Responding to Lord Young of Cookham's question on what "life safety critical" issues means that a proportionate approach should be taken, but that leaseholders should be spared any costs to do such works.

Refers to the "toolkit" of measures to make both developers and landlords, and their associates, responsible for defects.

And so we start the process of the Lords either agreeing to the Commons changes or voting to reject them and restore the Lords version of the Bill.

And so we start the process of the Lords either agreeing to amendments or forcing votes.

@KathPinnock does not force a vote on her amendment to extend protection to u11m buildings and enfranchised blocks.

@LabourLordsUK have just forced a vote on whether leaseholder contributions to non-cladding costs should be limited to more than £250.

Voting is open for the next 10 minutes and then we will have the result around 8.45.

This is probably the only vote on the BSB tonight.

And the Labour amendment is defeated by 187 to 209.

@KathPinnock speaking now, says she will not force a vote on her amendment to reduce the leaseholder non-cladding cap to zero.

Criticises government's apparent divide and rule tactics in relation to the cost protections for leaseholders.

And so the Building Safety Bill is passed in the form approved by the Commons last week.

It will now become an Act of Parliament.

The Lords moves on to consider the Commons amendments to the Health and Care Bill.

Although the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will not all come into force (into legal effect) for a period of some time, perhaps years.

The leaseholder cost protections (for those that have them) will come into effect 2 months from the date of Royal Assent, so likely late June 2022.

We await further details of the government's consultation on cost protection for those living in enfranchised buildings.

I will take a quick break now and do a round-up thread of thoughts later this evening.