Intervened to question why Mr Pincher insists that leaseholders should bear costs, despite previous assurances from the Government.

Argues that the amendment is necessary due to the financial and human crisis caused by the fire cladding scandal. Cites concerns raised about property values, mortgageability of flats, and high repair bills faced by leaseholders. Emphasises public support for the polluter pays principle and criticises the Government's lack of action.

Intervened to agree with Sarah Jones, highlighting the need for clarity on how taxes will work and how funds from levies will flow between UK and Welsh Governments.

Mr. Smith argues that the Government's failure to address the fire safety scandal could lead to a financial crisis due to up to 1.3 million unmortgageable flats. He emphasises the moral obligation for holding responsible parties accountable and ensuring innocent leaseholders are protected from costs related to unsafe buildings.

Ms. Benn highlights the immediate financial burden faced by leaseholders, citing examples of bills exceeding £27,000 and potentially reaching up to £40,000. She raises concerns about remortgaging difficulties and mental health impacts on affected individuals.

Mr. McPartland underscores the urgency of protecting leaseholders from financial ruin, citing instances of skyrocketing insurance premiums and unaffordable remediation costs. He appeals to the Government for a compromise to ensure homes are made safe without placing undue burdens on innocent residents.

He supports the Lords amendment, highlighting that leaseholders face significant costs including insurance premiums and service charges. He cites an example where a 24-unit building faces annual service charges of over £130,000, leading to defaults and potential bankruptcy. He urges MPs to protect blameless leaseholders.

[INTERVENTION] agrees with Pennycook's stance and points out that claddingscandalmap.co.uk maps 450 buildings affected by the scandal, showing MPs voting to force leaseholders to pay for costs.

Supports amendments in his name to prevent property forfeiture and ensure proper cost apportionment. He suggests bringing the issue forward in leasehold legislation and a real-time study by the Department to address interim costs and insurance issues.

Argues that four years since Grenfell, the Government continues to delay. She highlights soaring insurance costs of up to 1,000% in her constituency and cites a recent fire incident at Brindley House, where residents narrowly escaped a larger disaster.

Mr. Barry Gardiner criticises the Government for imposing retrospective costs on innocent leaseholders to fix misconduct by others such as developers or builders who failed to adhere to building regulations at the time of construction, leading to fire safety issues. He highlights a specific case in his constituency where leaseholders are facing exorbitant monthly charges and substantial remediation fees. Gardiner demands that the Government address the regulatory failures that allowed this scandal and accepts the Lords amendment to protect leaseholders.

Mr. Derek Thomas underscores the impact on first-time buyers and those involved in affordable home ownership schemes, who are now facing unexpected bills for life-changing sums due to building defects. He presents a case study of a future constituent seeking to relocate from London to Penzance and faces potentially £50,000 in remediation costs despite owning only 35% of the flat's value. Thomas supports pragmatic proposals that could unlock deadlock and improve fire safety without burdening leaseholders.

Ms Daisy Cooper warns about the potential for a financial crisis due to 1.3 million unmortgageable flats and millions facing up to 10 years of uncertainty in selling or getting new mortgages. She argues that the Government's refusal to accept an amendment protecting leaseholders is causing more harm, driving some to bankruptcy, homelessness, and even suicide. Cooper calls for a thorough inquiry into the Government’s response and urges colleagues to support the Lords amendment.

Supports holding the Lords amendment. Concerned about leaseholders facing financial difficulties due to unsafe buildings, particularly in his constituency with non-compliant cladding. Emphasises that developers must be held accountable for past mistakes and advocates for an additional £10 billion funding from the Government.

Supports the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment. Highlights severe mental health impacts on leaseholders, including suicides and high rates of self-harm thoughts. Criticises Government’s current funding approach as unfair, urging up-front funding for all buildings' remediation to protect innocent leaseholders from financial ruin.

Supports the Lords amendment due to concerns about its negative impact on innocent leaseholders. Advocates for a fair solution that protects leaseholders without relying solely on taxpayer funding, emphasising the need for developers and construction companies responsible for safety defects to be held accountable.

Calls upon the Government to fulfill its promise of not making leaseholders pay for unaffordable costs due to issues they did not cause. Advocates for urgent remediation funded by the state, highlighting severe financial and mental health impacts on constituents facing unsafe buildings and high bills.

Argues that the Lords Amendment 4J is ineffective as it fails to distinguish between minor and significant remediation costs. It does not provide clarity on cost recovery routes, leading to delays in necessary remediation works. Additionally, it would result in orphan liabilities where leaseholders continue living in unsafe properties without a clear responsibility for costs.

Asked if the Government could table their own amendment tomorrow to absorb points made in this House, ensuring leaseholders are not penalised as proposed by the current Bill.