For anyone following the Fire Safety Bill amendments, there is a new one from Labour which goes a bit further than the the McPartland/Smith amendment. Makes it harder now for the gov to buy off any rebellion now as well...

It largely follows the existing amendment but goes further on 3 points. First, it isn't limited to defects which predate the grant of the lease.

Secondly, it requires the Sec of State to examine the costs implications for leaseholders before extending the scope of the fire safety order in the future. Thirdly, it brings the amendments into force on Royal Assent.

Home schooling and the day job prevent me from replying to all the comments on here, but a few points
1) There is, of course, a risk that the issue becomes party political with competing amendments, but it also now makes it much harder for the gov to buy the issue off

Before the Labour amendment, my fear was that the gov would just offer (say) another £1bn to the BSF in exchange for Smith/McPartland not pushing their amendment. That is harder now.
2) The Lib Dem amendment is very unlikely to succeed.

I understand why it has been tabled and, of course, understand the point of it, but a retrospective change in the law to make a private party repay money (which it has itself already spent) to another private party is legally messy. Retrospective law is generally bad

and making private parties repay each other engages very difficult issues under Art.1, Protocol No.1, ECHR. In short, the gov has a relatively easy way to reject the Lib Dem one which doesn't require them to get into the actual merits of who pays for fire safety.

The Smith/McPartland amendments and the Labour amendments force the gov to grapple with that issue, hence they are (in my view) better.

Finally, it is correct that neither set of amendments is perfect. As is explained here ( https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2021/01/ping-pong-and-fire-safety/), the issue needs revisiting in the Building Safety Bill, but the amendments are an important step forward