National Assembly for Wales

Bore da, bawb. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. At last week's meeting, I was elected as the temporary Chair for the start of this meeting. John Griffiths has given his apologies for the first part of the meeting and will join us later. We've also received apologies from Joel James, and from Lee Waters for items 4 to 7. The public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. The meeting is bilingual and simultaneous translation is available. Are there any declarations of interest from Members? There are none.

This is the committee's fourth evidence session on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. The committee will take evidence from the Directors of Public Protection Wales housing expert panel, Local Authority Building Control and the Welsh Local Government Association. I'd like to welcome our four witnesses this morning. Perhaps you could introduce yourselves for the record, starting with you, Steve.

My name is Steve Tudball. I manage the housing enforcement team, which is an environmental health service for Cardiff, and that's based within the shared regulatory service. I'm representing the housing expert panel in Wales this morning.

Good morning. My name is Peter Keates, and I'm executive director for LABC. We're a not-for-profit member organisation, and we represent every local authority in England and Wales. LABC Cymru is one of our regions.

Good morning. My name is Tom Price. I'm the divisional environmental health officer in Swansea Council for pollution, private sector housing and building control. I'm here today in my capacity as a member of Environmental Health Wales, and on behalf of DPPW as well.

Good morning. My name is Alice Marks. I'm team leader for private sector housing in Swansea Council, and I'm representing the all-Wales housing expert panel today.

Thank you very much, and thank you for coming this morning. Your evidence is really important to us as we scrutinise this piece of legislation. Members will ask you a series of questions. Don't feel you've all got to answer every question, you can just indicate if you want to come in at all. I'll start off. I wonder if you believe that the Bill is needed in the first place.

Shall I kick us off? Okay, that's fine. Yes, it's needed and overdue. We see some distinct advantages. It's clear that the old regime was fragmented, that the system of fire safety risk assessment under the fire safety Order was not all encompassing and not fit for purpose. So, we welcome a regime that becomes more holistic and tighter in that respect.

There are some good elements to it. We welcome the introduction of the golden thread. As practitioners, it's really important that we're able to get our hands on all of the required information that we need to do our jobs. And I think defining responsibility with accountable persons and a principal accountable person is a really good step forward.

As we move on through further questioning, I'm sure we'll be able to demonstrate that it won't be easy, moving forward, and that perhaps we'll need to see some form of a staged approach to how the Act is introduced, in order to ensure a focus on the most important issues here, which I think are around remediation of category 1s.

LABC is very supportive of the Bill. We've worked closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the Building Safety Regulator, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in London on the Bill. Originally, it was expected that building control teams in England would be involved in the in-occupation phase, but they're actually only involved in England in the design and construction phase. This Bill is pretty much about the in-occupation phase. We're very supportive of the Bill and we see it as a very important piece of legislation.

Only to reiterate what Steve said there: yes, we strongly support the key areas of accountability and transparency, but also the overarching aim of improving and maintaining safety of multi-occupied buildings.

Fully in agreement. It's absolutely essential, long overdue, and completely essential to avoid the fragmentation that we're seeing at the moment. I think we just need to look at the practicalities. I think we're all in full agreement that it's essential.

Thank you. The Welsh Government are obviously taking a decision different to England, and they've included buildings below 18m high in this new regime. What's your view on that?

Again, we're very supportive of the inclusion of the lower buildings, particularly the category 2. I think there's no distinction, particularly in fire stats, between the 11m plus and the 18m plus, and height alone isn't the only indicator of risk in these buildings. So, we're very supportive of that.

I think, perhaps, the inclusion of category 3 is overambitious at this stage. With 51,000 predicted of those buildings, that's a big ask. My personal view, and the view of the all-Wales housing expert panel, is that we focus our attention on the category 1 and category 2. I would also question whether relevant houses in multiple occupation are appropriate to this regime. Obviously, we deal with a huge number of HMOs within current regimes, under the Housing Act 2004 and licensing, and there doesn't seem to be anything in addition in this Bill that we don't already have to deal with with those particular properties.

I think it's important that all of these properties are brought within scope from a fire safety risk assessment point of view, but we need to recognise that enforcement of standards in these cases is going to be really hard and time-consuming, and I think we need to strike a balance here and guard against overambition. We need to really focus on those cat 1 buildings and to not underestimate how hard that task is going to be, and how time-consuming that's going to be for professionals. I think probably what we need to see is some form of phased approach to its introduction, so that there can be proper focus on category 1 buildings.

LABC agrees that all categories are relevant. It's not just the height of a building that's relevant—it's construction type, whether it's modern methods of construction or non-standard, what maintenance is in place, suitability of controls and things like that. And, actually, in the 'Safer buildings in Wales' document, it did say that their aim was to ensure residents are safe in all buildings.

Thank you. Alice, you mentioned that the Bill was required because there was too much fragmentation at the moment. I think one of the things that we want to do is make sure it all fits in with legislation that we have, and existing regulatory requirements. So, do you think the Bill will integrate well in that respect?

Part of the discussions we've had previously is around the Housing Act 2004 and the powers there. Specifically, examples have been given previously in this committee's hearings around the HMO work. We feel initially there is nothing new to this Bill that isn't already captured within the HMO regulation. So, I suppose, for us, we're quite keen to see maybe a separation there, and let us carry on with that work on the world of HMOs. But, yes, it needs to mesh well, you're quite right there. We have a duty under cat 1 hazards under the Housing Act for fire already, so you're looking then at two different regulatory options within this Bill. That's going to be a key area as to how that operates. We'd appreciate further guidance, et cetera, on that. I don't know whether Alice or Steve want to come in on the local authority perspective.

I think I have some concerns with the practicality. I think one of them is that, under the Housing Act 2004, the local authority have a duty to act under that regime, if we assess a category 1 hazard. It doesn't give us the option; we have a duty, we must. One of those hazards is fire anyway, yet this Bill is stating quite clearly that that responsibility sits with the fire and rescue service. So, you have this duplicity where they act, perhaps, they might serve their notice, but we still have our duty under the housing Act, which doesn't mesh. That doesn't sit together well.

My other concern is with the section 81 provisions in the Bill, where there are issues that relate to structural and fire safety. Having dealt with some of these buildings in Swansea, I've seen this: you can't separate these two issues in the majority of cases. They sit together. Something that will affect the structural parts of the buildings will inevitably affect the fire. And to say that both parties can take action doesn't provide that clarity. You still have that fragmentation. I don't think that's going to work.

Do any of you think that this Bill could have a negative impact on housing supply?

I'm happy to go first on this one. I think it could, because I think developers could choose to just construct buildings of five or fewer stories, so you could end up getting less housing. Transitional provisions and changing regulations are always a challenge in the development industry, and it just may be something that they opt for. So that's where it could have an impact. 

A bit of a caveat on this one, really. It's not a field that that we would know a lot about or be the right people to provide input into, but I suppose a potential one for us is if we're seeing costs being passed on to occupiers in maintenance charges, for example, if there's additional cost incurred by owners of buildings having to comply with the powers.

Certainly you could see affordability of housing becoming problematic with service charges being passed on. I did see that with a building that I was involved with, a high-rise building, where a notice was served by me and those charges initially were being passed on. That is a concern, I think. And the other issue would be if a prohibition was served, because we were looking at that relatively recently, where a prohibition would have made 200 people homeless. With the housing crisis that we're seeing, that number of people suddenly being made homeless wouldn't be able to be accommodated by a local authority.

Okay, thank you. Lee. 

Thank you. There's quite a lot in the practicalities of this Bill that there are concerns about, even though you've had quite a lot of engagement with the Government to work these things through. I'll try and deal with these in turn, if we could. You talked initially, Alice Marks, about the HMO regime, where you felt it was already covered. But if it's already covered, this Bill shouldn't cause you any problems, surely?

I think the issue you have when you have conflicting regimes is which one you use for the enforcement. As a regulator we would have two regimes doing essentially the same thing. That causes confusion. It can cause confusion for us as a regulator, but more importantly it causes confusion for the landlords of these properties. HMOs have a great deal of regulation, and we put a great deal of effort into making sure that accommodation is safe under the licensing regimes. The intent of this Bill originally was for high-rise buildings and safety after the Grenfell tragedy, and I think by being overambitious and trying to include HMOs, which are already well regulated, that perhaps detracts from the intent.  

I think you said, and I think others echoed it, that you felt the Bill was right in its intent because it meets a need. But in terms of the practicalities, I think you've used the term ‘overambitious’. Others have said it would need to be phased just from the practicalities. So in terms of phasing, I presume you've put this point to officials. Why have they not brought forward phasing in this Bill, do you think? 

We were obviously part and parcel of the workshops et cetera that have been carried out by the Welsh Government. There's work now with Local Partnerships as well, which is being brought in to facilitate sessions. As to why it has not been incorporated in this Bill, I'm not in a position, unfortunately, to answer that for you, but it's certainly—

Are there good counterarguments you've heard that you think are relevant or persuasive? 

I think the bigger part with us, and we'll probably come on to it later as well, is around how it's delivered. That's been the hardest part for local authorities, perhaps, to get the structures around, as to how we might bring in these powers, how can we resource those capacities. Having 22, for example, is going to be a very difficult position for us to resource. Part of the narratives and the discussions going on now is looking at regional working and how does regional working work when we're looking at where the overall building safety authority responsibility lies. So, local government is much in favour of these multidisciplinary-type teams in a regional area—perhaps in fire service areas, for example, because it makes sense in that sense—but outside of local authority control, and having that power given to a different organisation perhaps, to these teams, to resource them in that sense, so that they can then operate across boundaries when we're looking at regulating category 1 buildings, for example. That's the sort of discussion we're having, but it's a discussion phase at the moment. Local authorities are attending these meetings and putting forward their opinions, their viewpoints, and that's all going into the consideration and we're waiting to hear further from Welsh Government on that process. 

It seems to me from the force of the evidence you've all given that, in reality, you're going to have to phase the implementation of this on a risk-based basis. Usually, you start with the higher buildings. So, do you think it would be better if that reality was reflected in the framework, and a phased approach was set out as part of the Bill?

Yes, I think so, because when you look at some of the papers that are in there, it's looking at primarily year 1 being focused on category 1s, for example, over the five-year cycles. I think risk management is the key phrase that you've used there. So, yes, reflection of that within the Bill would certainly be helpful from our perspective.

Can I just ask—? Alice Marks, you made the point about parallel regimes in existence from both a fire and building control point of view, and there was a clash there. Could that be mitigated if there was a level of governance where the building safety regime overlapped with the fire control, so the regional consortia, if you like, were coterminous with the fire authorities? Would that ameliorate some of those clashes?

I think it's incorporated in the Bill with the regulatory reform Order that the building safety would take precedence over that. But whether it's within the capacity of Welsh Government to say that this would override the Housing Act, I'm not sure. My concern is that if we have a duty under an Act and then we don't act, does that leave us open to criticism?

I think to get this dealt with effectively and learning from the mistakes in England where things haven't gone to plan—and we've seen that in the press quite recently—we need to learn, we need to get this right first time. And, to me, having a multidisciplinary team, where you have fire structural engineers, fire risk assessors, fire service and local authority environmental health officers sat in a team together, to deal with these buildings as a whole, works. Like you have with the joint inspection team for Wales, it works; you have all the specialisms. 

And is that a matter for the Bill, or is that a matter for implementation? 

I think it is, because I think the building safety regulator—. Splitting this Bill to sit half with the fire and rescue service and half with the local authority as the building safety regulator, to me, fragments this. We need a joined-up approach. I think we've seen the non-joined-up approach not working in England. We need the building safety regulator to be a body, not the fire and rescue service and the local authority as two separate bodies. That won't, in my opinion, work.

And did I take it from what you said earlier that you're saying another way of dealing with the overlap is to disapply it to houses in multiple occupation? 

Yes. 

Okay, and is that a position broadly shared?

Across local authorities at this point, yes. That's the opinion.

Okay. Can I ask then about—? LABC, in your written evidence, you echoed some of the evidence we heard last week, saying that the category 3 buildings, forgive me, should be—. 

Was it around the structural aspects? 

Yes, I think we've covered that, unless you want to add something in particular.

Yes, I think we probably have covered it a little bit. I think it's about people ensuring that they feel safe in their buildings, and is not carrying out a structural check at a four storey the right thing to do—

Sure, it was remediation I particularly wanted to ask about. Forgive me, I'm getting muddled. I've gone off script. We heard evidence that remediation should be covered by the Bill for existing buildings, because that currently is not being implemented. I was just wondering what your view on that is.

So, there are two aspects to that that I can refer to in England. There's the responsible actors scheme, and developers being required to sign up to that and commit to that—that's for anything over 11m—and then there's the building safety levy, where developers are going to be asked to fund cladding remediation. So, they're perhaps a little bit stronger than the situation you've actually got in Wales at the minute, in terms of those two. It could be appropriate for Welsh Government to have a look at how those work.

Well, lots of things could be appropriate, do you think they should?

Yes, I think they should.

Okay. So, you think there should be a sort of levelling up from that side.

Yes.

Okay. But even in England that's still not being effectively enforced, is it?

The building safety levy has not come in. That doesn't come in until next year. I'm not sure everything's perfect, but it's still there and it still can be used.

Okay. The final area I wanted to touch on was workforce. We heard last week there was significant concern about the ability to service these duties from within local authorities. Already, people are leaving for higher salaries in the private sector, which, in effect, means local authorities are going to have to pay for that, outsource it anyway, and the costs are going to be put on the taxpayer regardless. Do you think that there is a case for a workforce plan being insisted on alongside this Bill, to make sure these issues you're all flagging are properly addressed?

Shall I pick this up? Yes, absolutely. There's a resourcing crisis here. If we're talking about environmental health officers—. That's what I am. I've been able to chart over the last 20 years a 50 per cent reduction in the number of environmental health officers and technical staff working in housing enforcement in Cardiff, despite the growing importance of the sector and all of the challenges and new duties that have been placed upon us. So, huge cuts. That has produced a team under pressure. And, in parallel with that, we see a vast reduction in the number of new graduates. When I was in college, you would have seen 45 or 50 new environmental health officer graduates out of Cardiff every year. Over the last couple of years, it's been 10. So, a huge reduction in the number of environmental health officers. But, that said, this is not a function that is going to be taken forward by environmental health officers in isolation. This is going to be an area, from my point of view, for experts in the field. I think environmental health officers can play a vital supporting role in that, but, from my point of view, do not bring necessarily the expertise that will really be required at the sharp end when we're looking at category 1 buildings.

Can I come in as well, from a building control perspective? You may recall the 'Cracks in the Foundations' report identified resources issues in building control. Building control has been heavily involved in the design and construction phase. It's a challenge. Public sector building control in England and Wales has got resources issues. We've been fortunate enough to get Government grant from England and Wales. We've created an academy. We've brought in, I think it's in excess of 150 trainees across England and Wales—only six in Wales at the minute, but we're out to recruitment for another 12. Putting that into context, at the minute there are 133 registered building inspectors in Wales, across the 22 local authorities. It's a challenge. We need to do more. We need to find ways of funding more resource into the teams. That could be done. Two ways that could be looked at: further funding; and it could also be a look at the fees and charges legislation, which would enable local authorities to set cost recovery methods, both for building control and for some of the building safety.

But that, I think, goes back to your earlier concern about the cost of development increasing.

Yes.

Just to add to Steve's points there as well, as it stands with the way the Bill is set, for local authorities, the existing skill set with environmental health officers, if they are to upskill and train up to look at high-risk work, we're currently struggling with backfilling that capacity. There's a timeline that's needed. If you look at the issue of graduates, for example, you've got the academic cycles, you've then got the competency checks before you're official—before you're signed off, as it were—and then learning on the job. So, it's that timeline when you're looking at a workforce strategy. I assume that's what you're getting at there. From our perspective, from local authorities, yes, it would be certainly useful for us to have something incorporated in there that we can use when we're looking at workforce progression, and planning for it, because the costs are still unknown. We don't know what the fees will be, we don't know how that is going to be paid for, where that money will come from, because it will need to be funded, because we can't currently address it in the position we're in now.

So, in terms of known skills shortage areas, we've heard that building control and environmental health are areas where you are clear that there is already a shortage of trained professionals coming through. We've heard that fire safety risk assessors is another area where there's a shortage. 

Yes. Again, we look at competency requirements there. We're still waiting for confirmation of what that benchmark will be to be a competent fire risk assessor, but that is definitely another skill set that we need, from a local authority perspective. Alice has mentioned before that we look at fire as a hazard under the Housing Act. To be able to assess documentation from a structural side, there will be an element of fire there; we need to have that competency there. Currently, until we can get on the courses and get the money to do the training, et cetera, we are looking at having to consider outside expertise, which will come at, again, a cost that is unknown at this time. So, again, trying to plan it, how we are going to deliver a function, there are a lot of unknowns there still for local authorities as to how we might actually provide that model, which is why we look at that regional working approach and how it might be delivered with that multidisciplinary aspect.

So, just to be clear: are there other areas, skill areas, that are critical for the implementation of this Bill where there are known skills shortages?

I think across the housing regulatory sector, full stop, there is a skills shortage, and we are going to be competing with the private sector. What we need to consider is that, obviously, these category 1 buildings are going to need to produce building safety cases. They are going to be using the same professionals that we will need to be using in the regulation of this regime, and they will be paying significantly more than we can pay in a local authority, which is another reason why, I think, having a multidisciplinary team that sits outside of the local authority means our pay scales are not restricted to levels that are just not going to get the expertise that we need in this. We can't compete.

Okay. So, just to be clear, then: you here today support a workforce development plan to address these skill shortage areas. You also support regional working as a way of addressing this. Do you think that should be reflected in the Bill? Because, at the moment, it allows for 22 separate building control—

Yes.

Yes. The local authorities' position is, yes, we would like to see that included. 

And do you have a preferred model? Is it coterminousity with the fire authorities?

Yes. At the moment, that's the model that local authorities are keen on, looking at those three areas. It makes sense with the fire, obviously, because it's part and parcel of that same delivery of the work stream.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Peter, did you want to come in on this point?

Yes, just to clarify. So, early on, we said the Bill was a bit overambitious. I mean, is it the capacity issue? In all those questions you've just answered, is it that capacity issue that is making you say it's overambitious?

Yes, absolutely. 

It's a lack of capacity and training, coupled with the fact that, as regulators, as enforcers, we know how hard the job is. Even in some of these cases that we're dealing with now, in relation to HMOs and poorly converted buildings, seeking full remediation, full compliance, takes all of our efforts. And when you're dealing with difficult cases, it can tie you up for years. We've recently had a really difficult property, badly converted, an illegally converted property with 11 flats: two and a half years to take it through the courts, and then, in my view, a paltry fine at the end of it. So, this is hard work, and where we come across non-compliance, it's going to tax the resources that are available. It's important that the Bill doesn't dilute the ability of those professionals to get involved in the most difficult cases, in particular, where there is going to be a skill set and a shortage of the right professionals.

I get that. So, in an ideal world, you would embrace doing all this on category 2 and 3, but your priority has to be on category 1 initially for that backlog—to deal with your own ongoing backlog, as well as trying to address that category 1 situation.

It doesn't mean necessarily that certain aspects of the Bill might not apply—for instance, responsibilities in relation to fire safety risk assessments that are placed on accountable persons. It may be appropriate to bring that in in order to replace the fire safety Order, but I think it's around the enforcement provisions in particular that we need to see some form of phase-in.

Yes.

Do you want to carry on? 

It neatly carries on. I was going to ask a little bit about enforcement. We're just wondering: does the Bill give you sufficient powers to ensure compliance with the new regime? Are there some practical barriers that just prevent you from exercising your enforcement powers?

Shall I—?

I think, broadly, the powers are excellent. We've consulted a lot with Welsh Government on the powers and what's required. So, broadly, they do. I think the two things we need to ensure that are in place are the powers of entry requirements—obviously, this needs to be balanced with people's quiet enjoyment of their property, but in buildings where you have got an impact on the health and safety of all the other residents we need to have quite robust powers of entry—and also, in regard to obtaining documentation, there are restrictions, under the Housing Act provisions, in terms of getting documents, and it would be nice for this to be broad in the documentation that we could ask for.

Yes. One issue, we understand, is that the Bill doesn't provide a way for building safety authorities to bring special measure orders to a close. Do you foresee any barriers for your authorities to use these powers?

Yes. I mean—. Yes, absolutely. It's a similar provision to an empty dwelling management order, which we've got one of in place. That's just for a single house. And, logistically, it's a lot of work. If we're looking at one building in Swansea, a high-rise, which I actually spent two years on with the remediation of, the Bill for the cladding on that is looking at £60 million. Now, if we were to take that on as a local authority, I think I'd bankrupt Swansea. So, practically, are we going to take on a special measures order? No.

No. No, I get that. Anybody else? No. Fine.

Chair, can I just ask—? On that point about special measures, my understanding is that the Bill allows for a building to be brought into special measures, but, as you say, in practical terms, that's something local authorities would be very reluctant to do. Therefore, it's a kind of moot power, really—

It is, yes.

—but the Bill is silent on how a building leaves special measures.

Yes. It is with empty dwelling management orders. You know, we've had this property for years and years and years and, essentially, we're stuck with it forever more, and it would be the same with this, which, yes, is problematic. Once you've done it once, you're very reluctant to do it again because of the practicalities of ever getting rid of that off your responsibilities.

So, what do you suggest?

I think there needs to be a rolling cycle whereby that can be handed back to a responsible party, and that they have to work alongside the local authority to take back that responsibility and put measures in place to be able to do so.

The fact that the Bill is silent on that is a pretty significant flaw, isn't it?

Yes. Yes, I think it is.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you face real issues in bringing legal action against multinational corporations or other large operators? What sorts of challenges are you coming up against when you have to deal with them?

Steve, do you want to come in there, or—?

It's not something that we've had to do as yet. In the world that we currently deal with, where we're dealing with houses in multiple occupation, generally, it's not something that we've come up against, but I know, in conversation with the fire service, they see that as a barrier to enforcement.

Yes.

It's difficult enough with a limited company. Directors change; you do your usual checks with Companies House and various things, but if those directors are then abroad, clearly, that's problematic. We have enough difficulties with landlords that live abroad, let alone multinational companies and the logistics. With the notices that I had to serve on the high-rise building in Swansea, it was in excess of 200 notices. I know, having spoken to a colleague in England, she's serving up to 1,000 notices per building. The scale of this, I think, cannot be appreciated until you're actually in it.

Thanks for that. For local authorities who are landlords, the Bill requires them to make all reasonable efforts to delegate building safety functions to another authority for category 1 buildings, but not for category 2 or 3. The Welsh Government told us then that they felt that that was proportionate. I wonder what your views are on that.

I suppose, initially, looking at this scenario, it comes back to perception, primarily, around the local authority. Local authorities have robust measures in place. The Bill will require us to go through—. Well, guidance will be provided, which is another thing we're waiting for, but it will provide us with those protocols that we are to follow, and everything will be transparent. We go through very heavy audit processes. The risk levels sit differently on that risk scale, when you come through category 1, 2 and 3, hence why the categories have been devised.

So, from our perspective as local authorities, we're looking at the volume of work as well. When you consider there's approximately 180 cat 1s, about 450 cat 2s, I think you referenced 51,000 cat 3s, we've got to look at that capacity, that skill set in the workforce as well. It would be far better, I think, from a local authority perspective, if there was an oversight or that tribunal position is there whereby something can be called in and checked if required, and that appeal process does sit within the Bill. I think, when you're looking at delivering it, from our perspective, the books are open, everything can be checked, everything can be looked at, all the documentation will be there to give that confidence, and to—. A big piece of work needs to be done on that perception, I suppose, which is one of the key highlights that came out of, obviously, the reviews.

Perhaps, again, if you had a team that's sat outside the local authority, that might address that concern as well. Because it is a perception, but, certainly, from my observations, it's not the reality. We take the responsibility of the landlord incredibly seriously, but there will be that perception there, and perhaps having the team sat outside the local authority would address that concern.

Thank you for that. Thank you.

Lee.

Can I just clarify that, because that's the second time you've mentioned this model of a team sitting outside the local authority? So, just to be clear what you have in mind, is that—? Because a regional consortium approach would still be within the local authority family, if you like, within the framework. You mentioned earlier that a model that would allow people to appoint at different pay scales would be more appropriate given the private sector poaching of staff, which makes lots of sense. That's exactly what happens with Transport for Wales, for example.

Right.

But that's not my understanding of what a regional local government framework would involve. So, just for me to be clear, are you talking about regional working, coterminous with fire and safety authorities, or are you talking about a body outside the current local government arrangements?

I think it needs to sit—and the all-Wales housing expert panel think it needs to sit—outside, for a number of reasons. I think we need a central body, a building safety regulator, which oversees the registration, the building safety certificates, and central information technology systems, central legal support—all of those services. To be able to recruit the people that you need for these teams, it needs to be outside local authority pay scales. The only way of doing that is to have a body that sits outside of that, because we have to stick with the local authority pay scales that we have. That's not going to work. And again, this consistency of approach, consistency of standards—if you have maybe three teams sitting in the fire and rescue service areas under a central body who does the register, the IT systems, the legal systems, I think that would be a more effective approach, and one that would be possible to achieve.

So, crudely, a back-office function within the local authority framework at a regional level, but a specialist skills framework outside the local authority. 

Yes. 

Okay. 

Can I come in on that?

Please, yes. 

I just wanted to share some examples in building control. I don't understand the work of Alice's team and Tom in environmental health, in terms of how they deal with things now, but building control has got a number of examples across England of shared services that work in the same way that this could work in Wales. I think eight is the most where a building control team is joined together. There are different operating models. We started to look at this with Welsh local authorities because of the recommendation in the 'Cracks in the Foundations' report for regionalised working. So, you can have a shared service with a lead authority. There's a mutual in England. There are all sorts of different models. We've shared those thoughts with Local Partnerships, who are looking at this as well. So, I think there are a number of options and it's not necessary for us to decide.

Okay, thank you. 

Thank you. Siân. 

Thank you for the question. So, as I say, having gone through some of the cost reports submitted with the Bill work there, there’s a concern, really, with local authorities here around the potential underestimation of the cost work on there, a lot of this driven by unknowns, primarily. The figures within the report have been taken from work in England to try and have a starting point to try and cost things out. So, we’re looking at a 10-year present value cost for local government—local authorities—of just over £5 million. When we look at the numbers of category 1s, the numbers of category 2s, over 10 years, the feeling within local government is that, actually, the cost is likely to be a lot more. When we looked at some of the cost figures initially, an environmental health officer hourly rate hadn’t been costed, for example.

And I suppose what we’d like to see, when we talk about this regional working approach, whatever format that may take, is to have some sort of assessment of cost in that sort of provision, as opposed to the 22 and what it would cost a local authority; Welsh Government are in there, I think with costs of circa £25 million over 10 years—so, further detailed explanation or guidance around where that money is going. Because I think fire and local authorities come in at approximately £9 million to £10 million, I think, over the 10-year costs, but would be doing the lion’s share of that registration, that responsibility, the safety casework.

So, I think a bit more clarity and guidance to be driven around how costs are worked, and especially fee setting—what will that look like, and what will be charged for. Is it just administration of the registration process? How do you cost enforcement when we don’t know what it will entail, to give an accurate cost, so that we can plan and prepare for future years?

I'm happy to offer a view. LABC's view is that it should be a scheme that recovers the full costs. And I know that Tom's made a point about enforcement, and that's very difficult to quantify, but you could set up a scheme that charges an hourly rate. There are similar schemes in England. The BSR has a scheme where there's an hourly rate for audits of local authorities, and they pay based on the amount of time it takes to carry out an audit. So, there are ways that you could set up a cost recovery scheme.

I know that we have spoken previously about this sort of thing. Steve, if you're happy—.

Yes, my view is that estimating enforcement costs upfront is going to be extremely difficult. If we look at the example of HMO licensing, for instance, where you can build in an element of enforcement costs, that's a little more predictable, but, nevertheless, it's a very difficult task to forecast what those enforcement costs will be down the line through the course of a scheme. I think, in this instance, it's going to be really, really difficult to estimate what those enforcement costs will be. At this time, we don't know how many enforcement notices will need to be served, how many cases will need to be taken to court, how many appeals we will have. It's impossible at this stage to estimate that with any degree of certainty. So, I think, certainly, in the early days of the scheme, yes, perhaps some fee setting around registration, around the administrative part of registration, but this will have to be underwritten by Welsh Government until we have an idea of the impact of enforcement and the total costs of the scheme.

Again, I think, the evidence is still to be fully collated on that, because whilst we're aware of initial concerns, et cetera, over category 1s, category 2s, the full requirement of works that will be required at this point is on a different scale to what gateway 2 will pick up, et cetera, on building control design and construction phase. I suppose, ideally, in the future, yes, that's where we'd get to, but, as it currently stands, if you look at the figures included within the report, and just to assess, a safety case review for a high-risk category 1 building is being costed at 83 hours for everybody—involvement, full regulation. If that's a 50:50 split, that's a working week for a local government. We don't actually know fully what that will incur time wise, so it's difficult to cost that in. Prosecution cases, as Steve has said previously, can be very, very lengthy. So, it's that uncertainty that still sits for us. But, in the long term, I think, yes, that's the ideal goal of where we'd like to be—you'd see a reducing involvement in enforcement and an increase in compliance.

I think there's certainly the regime with the intent to put more responsibility on the principal accountable persons and the accountable persons—that is the way forward so that, ideally, the responsibility sits with them and, as you quite rightly point out, we would have less enforcement responsibility. I think, realistically, there's always an element that doesn't want to comply, and also an element that can't comply for other reasons. The logistics of remediation in some of these buildings is incredibly problematic, incredibly difficult. They're taking off, essentially, the outer skin of these buildings, and you're leaving them open to the elements. We've also seen in some flats in these high-rise buildings up to 400 points of remediation in one flat. You're having to decant the residents to undertake this work, so, with the best will in the world, it's very, very difficult—very difficult. 

Okay, looking at another aspect, there are the implementation costs, but then there's the cost, or the potential cost, to the residents in terms of increased service charges, rents going up, et cetera. Do you have any views on the need, or otherwise, to protect residents from having to take a portion of the costs in the legislation? Is there anything needed in protections for residents?

I think it is a difficult one, isn't it. At the end of the day, somebody has to pay for this regime somewhere along the line. Who that sits with, I don't have an answer to that. I do know, in the case that I dealt with, through the legal system of a notice, initially the residents were given a service charge each of between £30,000 and £50,000 per year for two years. That was withdrawn because the FSCS stepped in and paid that because the builder had gone into administration, the insurance provider had gone into administration and the underwriters had gone into administration. So, it was left and it has been picked up by the FSCS, but, originally, each occupier, leaseholder of those flats were looking at up to a £100,000 bill.

We've had one suggestion that residents may actually pay less, because they will be paying less in insurance because the building is safer. I mean, I can't see that myself.

No. I mean, there is a possibility insurance premiums will go down, once the building's fully compliant. Whether that would offset a £50,000 remediation bill, I'm not—. No.

There's also consideration of the increased costs there of completing and submitting a safety case report where they've got to pull in expertise to provide fire risk assessments, structural assessments et cetera. So, there's lots to be considered in new costs of the Bill and where that cost would be recovered. It's difficult to confirm, really, whether that would hit the residents or not.

Diolch, Siân. Turning to the proposal around accountable persons, I was just wondering if you have a view about whether the duties that are being placed on them are proportionate.

Yes, we have no issues with that element of the Bill at all.

Anybody different? The same.

We welcome that level of accountability. We think it's robust. So, yes, we're very supportive of that.

That's good. I'm going to ask you, Alice, at the start of this question, because you've touched on this previously: the Welsh Government says the new regime will streamline and simplify current fire safety duties for those responsible for category 3 buildings. I think you've given a view on that, but I was just wondering if you had anything further you'd like to say.

I think it has the potential to. I think, in its current format, it overcomplicates. I think there are ways of doing that, which I think we've touched on, with perhaps excluding relevant HMOs and a phased approach. The smaller buildings are not so difficult to regulate under the current regimes that we have. The issues we have are in the buildings 11m plus, 18m plus, where our current powers just don't cut it, really, and that's where this is very, very welcome and very much needed, and I think that needs to be our focus with the resources that we've got. We're talking relatively small numbers in Wales of category 1 and category 2. We can have a really effective robust regime for dealing with those and put the focus on those buildings in the initial stages.

Thank you. Anybody else? Steve.

As this Bill makes its way through, I'd like us to remember the role of HMO licensing and how effective it is, in my view. In England, they've extended the scope of mandatory licensing of HMOs, and that's something I'd really like to see, because that enables us to—for instance, with our additional licensing schemes—to have a very comprehensive approach. It's almost a door-to-door approach of ensuring a standard is applied and that we're bringing as many of those properties up to standard as possible. So, I think that we should not forget those tools that we've already got in the box that we could go further with.

Are you concerned about the impact of HMO landlords with this Bill? 

My only concern is around ensuring good understanding, because we're introducing a further level of complexity and knowledge. As practitioners, I think, every time we come to read the Bill or the guidance, we pull something new out of it. It takes quite a lot of time to really get to grips with all of these new duties, and it's really important that this is very well explained if we're bringing in a second regulatory regime the landlords are going to have to look at. So, we're going to have to aim for clarity.

So, further clarity needed. Okay. Steve, you welcomed particularly—. You mentioned the golden thread of information. Do you think there are challenges for building safety authorities in maintaining that information?

When dealing with HMOs, we have powers to require documents held by landlords, but when they don't hold those documents, those powers fall by the wayside. So, if we have a firm direction that accountable persons must hold the following information and must supply it when asked by the local authority or by the building safety authority, then it really strengthens things. We do find, when we're looking for fire alarm certificates, electrical safety certificates, gas safety certificates, that these are often not available when we come to looking at problematic properties and dealing with rogue landlords. So, providing clarity around what building owners or accountable persons should hold, I think, is a major step forward.

Do you think the digital infrastructure as it stands now would support that, or do you think a new system would be required? 

No.

No.

No, 22 separate systems would be—

Disastrous.

—very difficult. I think a central system is certainly favourable for local authorities.

They're so cost prohibitive to set up. IT systems are notoriously expensive. Plus, I think you need consistency for the people using this system. A lot of owners and managers of these buildings will have buildings in various different authorities, and to be able to log into a central portal and record all of that on one system is clearly a preferable approach, apart from the cost issues of setting up and maintaining these systems.

Thank you. Siân, did you want to come in?

It just struck me that we're talking about HMOs and that the Bill, really, doesn't add anything extra to what is already there in terms of HMOs. So, why couldn't we expand the legislation that's currently there for HMOs to deal with category 1 and 2 buildings? Wouldn't that be a simpler way, rather than bringing a whole new Bill in, if we already have the powers that this Bill provides in terms of HMOs?

We have the powers in terms of HMO properties, and I think HMOs are all better dealt with under the current provisions that we have. Obviously, with the category 1, 2 and 3 buildings, which are not HMO properties and are generally owner-occupied, we don't currently have the powers to deal with those. But we do have a very good and very effective system for regulating HMOs, and that's where I think that this is not adding anything that we don't already have.

That's what I'm asking. That's what I'm asking, really. Why don't we just expand the HMO regime to include category 1, 2 and 3?

We can certainly expand the HMO regime to include more HMOs, and I think that's what both Steve and I would advocate for—that the mandatory licensing of HMOs is expanded much in line with England, really. I think there's a complication in this Bill as well, in that a relevant HMO will include that HMO when it's on a joint tenancy but not when it's on individual tenancies. Now, if the landlord decides to alter how they're letting that property—or occupancy contracts, I should say, not tenancies—as the landlord decides to alter that, it could fall in and out of this regime on a yearly basis. I think that the licensing regime should be extended to include those.

Okay. Thank you. Steve. 

I think the two regimes are different in a fundamental way. This Bill builds more, I think, on the fire safety Order, where what we're talking about is placing responsibility on accountable persons through fire safety risk assessment. That is an element that's entirely missing from the Housing Act 2004, where the system is around the local authority being the regulator, imposing standards and carrying out assessments. It doesn't place those fire safety risk assessment duties on the accountable person. So, the new regime is absolutely needed from that point of view in order to place those fire safety risk assessment responsibilities where they need to be.

Okay. Thank you very much. Diolch. 

So, the important aspect for you in this Bill is the creation of the responsible person.

I think it's essential in order to provide clarity, as are the requirements around fire safety risk assessment and the golden thread, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Just briefly, Peter.

I just wanted to make a point about the golden thread. In the review of building regs and fire safety, there was a statement that said that a building's original design intent is preserved and good-quality information is passed on, to enable future building owners to better manage their building safety. So, I think that's really important that a system achieves that. I think it's also really important that the end users and the users of the system are engaged in any design.

Okay. Well, thank you very much for your evidence. We appreciate you coming in this morning. You will be sent a transcript to check that it's factually correct and, again, thanks ever so much for coming in. Diolch. 

We'll now take a short 10-minute break.

This is the committee's fifth evidence session on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. We're now going to take evidence from the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, South Wales Fire and Rescue Service and North Wales Fire and Rescue Service. So, thank you to our witnesses for joining us. You're all attending virtually, so perhaps you could start by introducing yourselves for the record?

Good morning, all. My name's St.John Towell, I'm head of business fire safety within South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.

Good morning. My name's Paul Slade. I work for South Wales Fire and Rescue Service as a station manager within business fire safety.

Good morning. I'm Steven Roberts from North Wales Fire and Rescue Service. I'm the head of protection.

Diolch. Thank you very much. Obviously, there will be a series of questions now from Members. So, I'd just like to start by asking if you think the Bill is needed? Shall I start with you, Siôn?

Yes, thanks. I think that the Bill is absolutely required in terms of bringing the standard of elements of residential housing up to a more modern level, but also aligning it to the standards with England. I think it will provide a better regulatory approach, with focus on local regulation, it will provide greater scrutiny on a range of residential buildings, which, ultimately, will safeguard the occupants of those building. But also, critically, from our perspective, it will provide safeguards for firefighters as well in terms of ensuring that those buildings are as safe as they should be pre fire, ideally, as a preventative measure, but certainly  post fire as well, or during the emergency phase. I hope that's helpful, Chair.

Yes, thank you. Anybody else? Thank you.

It's St.John, south Wales. Just to echo Siôn's thoughts there, and also the current legislation in the fire safety Order—it does concentrate more on commercial aspects of buildings in the communities. And this piece of legislation of the Bill will help us and support us in concentrating on the residential aspect, which also aligns to the recommendations following Grenfell.

Thank you. Anybody else? I should have probably said, you don't have to answer every question. Perhaps if you could just raise your hand if you do want to answer, that would be great. Paul.

We're just looking for a clearer governance structure and stronger enforcement that addresses the issues that the Hackitt and the Grenfell recommendations have fallen out with. The current legislation is currently insufficient.

Thank you. Okay. What's your view about the Welsh Government taking a different approach to England and including buildings below 18m in the new regime?

So, again, I'll let my colleagues elaborate on some of the detail, perhaps, but, certainly, I think it's fair to say that, collectively, we welcome this. The risk is not necessarily proportionate to height, and as such this approach safeguards a wider cross section of the public, and, again, firefighters, by bringing those three categories of buildings into scope. It's a welcome step that goes further than the English equivalent legislation, and, of course, we refer to that because it's been in for some time, so we've had an opportunity to see how that has benefited, you know, colleagues in English fire and rescue services.

Paul?

That was comprehensive. I was just—. The etiquette of who spoke first. So, yes, a comprehensive response there from Siôn.

Okay. I think one of the things that we believe should be avoided is fragmentation and complexity around the current legislation and guidance and regulatory requirements. Do you think the Bill, as it's currently drafted, integrates well with all that?

I can talk if you'd like.

Thank you, Paul.

We're going to be moved—. South Wales introduced a dual enforcement model. One impact that will have is on existing formal notices and how they fit together with the FSO currently as it stands. We've also got concerns it will have a hybrid model, which is part civil and part criminal, so all notices will be able to be appealed, which we'll cover more later in some questions. But we would like to see some joint protocols that avoid parallel enforcement and duplication from the building safety
authorities and the fire authority.

Could I follow that?

Lee.

Just on that, we heard some evidence from the previous panel that a joint protocol wouldn't address the fact that there'd be a legal duty under one set of legislation for building control, for example, and a separate legal duty for a fire authority. So, why do you think the joint protocol would be enough to deal with that?

I was thinking more of a joint protocol between the BSA and the fire authority to avoid duplication of work, so we're going to try and hopefully match our inspections together and work in partnership, but I wouldn't want parallel enforcement activities taking place.

But if you're operating under separate legislation, I think the evidence we just heard is, if there's a duty to act under one piece of legislation, that's not discretionary, is it? You have a duty to act. So, my question is: do you think that's a fundamental problem, or do you think it can be dealt with by joint agreements?

A joint agreement would manage that, yes.

That wasn't the evidence we heard from the previous panel, who felt that, if there was legislation that compelled the authority to act if they had a duty, then there's no joint arrangement that would get around that. There's a fundamental clash there.

I'm talking about specifically when we're both trying to apply the new legislation. I think, if we're both working on parallel pieces of legislation, so if we're working on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, then we will have a duty, yes.

I'm not sure you're engaging with the point I'm trying to make. More broadly, in terms of, if we are setting up—. Under this new regime, there's going to be both fire duties and building control duties, where there's relevant legislation that needs to be enforced. There is a danger, in adding a layer on to an existing layer of enforcement, that there will be duplication, which you've highlighted, but that is not duplication that can be addressed simply by guidance, because legislation has a greater standing.

I agree with that point, yes. I agree with that point.

But isn't that different from what you've just said earlier, that you thought that joint agreements could overcome it?

I was talking about joint agreements when we're carrying out enforcement activities when we're both enforcing the same parts of legislation, so I didn't take into consideration, as you said, if we were looking at construction, maybe, as opposed to fire. I was thinking if we were both focusing on the same path.

Does anybody else have anything to add on this point?

I suppose we're looking at the building safety Bill and how it integrates with the fire safety Order and the Fire Safety Act 2021, and in that respect it's been made clear to us, in terms of purely residential buildings, that the building safety Bill will replace our existing legislation under the fire safety Order and the impacts of the fire safety Act.

I think our concern, as an enforcing authority, is that some of the terminology will create challenges for us from a fire and rescue perspective—the differences, for example, between enforcement notices and compliance notices under the new legislation, and the regulatory pathway to a property tribunal, as opposed to magistrates and criminal courts, which is what we've been used to in the past. These are not insurmountable from our perspective, although I appreciate that we may have looked at this question in a different way to the approach of questioning at the moment.

Okay, well, maybe we'll need to return to you in writing once we've had a chance to reflect on the evidence. Thank you.

Thanks, Lee. You just mentioned challenges shown from this legislation. I wonder if you could tell us—. There are going to be some major changes, obviously, for you all as fire and rescue authorities if this legislation is passed—if you could expand a bit more on that, please. Do you want to start, Siôn?

Sure. So, I think that there's likely to be, or there will be under the new legislation, an increased workload for us in auditing and assessing fire risk assessments under the category 1 scope buildings. And it's the unknown then, I suppose, with the other elements for the category 2 and 3 buildings, of which there are an estimated 51,000 category 3 buildings in Wales. The impact and burden on regulatory functions within fire authorities is unknown. 

So, to provide some context, within the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service area, we have 44,000 premises on our register that would generally attract regulatory scrutiny from our fire safety teams. We prioritise the auditing approach for those 44,000 buildings as part of a risk-based inspection programme, which we all develop across Wales. So, effectively, we prioritise and audit the riskiest risks within our respective areas. So, the addition of the new responsibility—albeit, admittedly, it does already exist there in some form—may impact that risk-based inspection programme. And, typically, the types of premises that we'll see at the absolute apex of those risk-based inspection programmes will be premises like care homes, residential homes, nursing homes, hotels, schools, hospitals, and so on. So, any additional workload—and we feel that there will be additional workload that will be not resourced—will inevitably dilute our capacity to audit those premises that we currently consider to be high risk. 

And, I suppose, the other element, just to capture the two in one part—not so much of a challenge, but a major change for us—is that we have never had the power to enter a dwelling for enforcement purposes previously, whereas this is captured. It's not a concept that is alien to us, because we do have powers under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to enter a dwelling post fire for fire investigation purposes, but I'm sure you'll appreciate that entering somebody's home in normal circumstances is quite different, and, again, we're unsure how that will play out and what the actual methodology will be. 

So, two key points there, I suppose: one around funding, of course, and one around enforcement powers for dwellings. 

Thank you. Anybody else? Steven.

Yes, from north Wales’s perspective as well, we are, I’d say, in the same situation where, obviously, the Bill brings in some further work. We’re probably talking that it does increase enforcement as well. That will bring extra work within enforcement—the powers of entry and going into those properties. But the co-operation with the building safety authorities, the engagement with the buildings themselves and the accountable person, or the principal accountable person, will bring, we feel, an increased degree of work without the funding, unfortunately.

The cost document from the Welsh Government was quite comprehensive in how it was designed, and it talked about hours and so forth. However, I think that was slightly naive, because it didn’t talk about the other aspects that would have a knock-on effect, as in the legal and the enforcement and the increased cost of legal action for each authority as well. Also, the digital transformation of each service and how we share the information—where is the information kept? Is it a cloud-based system that we can all access? I think there are certain things that are envisaged that are unknown quantities at this moment in time.

Thank you. Okay. Lee.

Thank you. We've heard that the Bill presents an opportunity to accelerate the remediation of existing safety risks, but that opportunity is not currently being seized. So, do you think the Bill should include powers on enforcing existing remediation of safety risks?

I'll answer that one. Currently, in south Wales, we've built a very good relationship with Welsh Government and the remediation teams, the building safety teams, and we've been able to push through the remediation requests through our current enforcement powers. However, this is often on goodwill as well, because we want to be able to work closely with developers and Welsh Government to make sure that we get those buildings safe and remediated for the purposes of public safety and resident safety. However, there's no current legislation that would be able to ensure that this is completed. So, it's a balance of trying to work with them through this goodwill. However, I do feel that some powers to support remediation would probably be helpful as well. It's something to consider, yes.

So, you think the Bill should be amended?

Well, for me, it's something to consider having it included in the Bill to make sure that we can utilise these powers to remediate these buildings. We are working very, very closely with teams, as I've stated, at the moment and that is working. However, some form of legislative powers would probably support that to get to action it.

So, you do support the Bill being amended.

I'll say 'yes' to that then, yes. 

Okay, thank you. Then in terms of the three criteria—sorry, the three categories of building—are you content with the criteria for the three categories?

I'll answer that, then. I think, absolutely, as we said at the start, the Bill does go further than English equivalents and that's really welcome, that is. I think it places the duty on principal accountable persons or accountable persons, depending on which category of building we're talking about; it makes it consistent across the whole of the built environment. I think it safeguards a larger proportion of the population, and it makes it clearer for people with responsibility for managing these buildings—whether it's five storeys, seven storeys, or 15 storeys—that the source of information and the legislation that they need to operate under are in one place and they're clear and unequivocal. So, absolutely, I support and agree with the three categories of buildings there. 

We heard from the local government panel earlier that they thought, given the constraints on the workforce and that the complexities of bringing particularly level 3 into the piece were so significant, that this would need to be staged—the implementation would need to be staged. Is that something you support?

In the work programme that I've seen, it's my understanding that the introduction is intended to be staged, and I would support that. There are regulatory changes for regulators, for people with new duties, and it would seem very appropriate and sensible that it does come in a staged approach. As I said earlier, risk isn't necessarily proportionate to height, however, there are larger populations within the category 1 buildings as opposed to categories 2 and 3, and therefore it would make sense to bring it in in a staged approach, with the tallest buildings initially, working the way down to the category 3. 

Thank you. And in terms of the clarity in the Bill, do you think that the relationship between the fire safety authorities and the building safety authorities is sufficiently clear? 

At the moment, I think the duties on and expectations of the building safety authority and the fire safety authority are clear. However, what isn't quite clear at the moment is the make-up of the building safety authorities: whether that's going to be one for the whole of Wales—the 22 unitary authorities—or governed then through the three fire and rescue services, so, those boundaries. So, that is where we would need more clarity. 

Well, the Bill as currently drafted allows for the possibility of 22 separate building safety authorities. Is that something you support?

We've discussed this, and the opinion of the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service is that it might be appropriate to match our service areas and have three.

Okay. So, do you think the Bill should reflect that, because it doesn't? It currently would allow local authorities, if they were so minded, to stick to 22. Do you think it would be better if the Bill was clearer, to avoid that possibility?

Yes, we do, in south Wales.

Okay, thank you. And then, in terms of the separate responsibilities for fire safety and structural safety, are they too closely interconnected, do you think?

I'll go, then, yes? They are very closely interconnected, because obviously, you know, we deal with compartmentation and reducing the risk of fire and smoke spread. That can also then link into the structural implementation of the building as well. So, they are very closely linked, and hence, I think, why what we're trying to allude to is that there needs to be a close form of working, a very close form of working, between the building safety authority and the fire safety authority as we move forward with this.

Thank you. I just want to finish on workforce. We've heard from a number of witnesses now that there's a skills shortage right across the piece. At the moment, there is demand for fire risk assessments, but the current regime doesn't require a fire risk assessment to be carried out by a competent person. Is this an area of concern?

I think it definitely is. The issue of substandard fire risk assessments has been one that's been prevalent for a number of years. The fire safety Order currently requires fire risk assessors to be able to demonstrate competence, although the guidance around competence has always been a little unclear. Certainly in mid and west Wales, given the poor quality of fire risk assessors that we regularly encounter, we are not convinced that the competence broad-brush exists within the sector, because we do encounter tick-box types of fire risk assessments or ones where quite fundamental and simple matters have been missed. However, we are currently going through a period of change. So, just very recently, there is now a British standard for the built environment in terms of a framework for competence for fire risk assessors, and that's really welcome, and there are three levels in terms of competence. There's a foundation level, there's an intermediate level and then there's an advanced level, and the advanced level talks about highly experienced professionals working on complex buildings, and it does include residential towers. So, in terms of the category 1 and category 2 buildings that we're are talking about, it identifies that it should only be the most experienced professionals who will have the required competence to work on those. And we feel that because of the demand on industry over the last 10 years that that competence level isn't necessarily there at the moment.

So, that's the framework, but in terms of the people with those skills, in your experience, is there a shortage of people who are skilled in that framework?

I mean, we can only go on the quality of the fire risk assessments that we have. We haven't got an opportunity to have a workforce labour picture of fire risk assessors in that sector. But we can see that the level of competence currently probably isn't enough to meet the demands of the advanced part of that framework, which is a new framework, as I said. The industry is moving towards it, it's working towards it, and it's working towards it at pace, I would say. We know that we are, for example, losing fire safety regulators to the commercial sector at a rate that we've never seen before, because the opportunities now exist there. So, I'm reasonably confident that over a period of five to 10 years, we will see far more people working within that professional sector, the commercial sector, at the advanced level. But it's my feeling, reflecting the view of mid and west Wales fire service, that we're not at that point yet.

But the fact that we don't know the level of skills, there's no skills audit taking place to be able to have a robust evidence base to say what the lack of capacity is, suggests that there is a systematic lack of a strategic approach in this area. Would you support a workforce plan being part of this legislative framework to make sure that there is a more thorough approach to making sure that there are plans in place to address any skills shortages?

If that was possible within the commercial sector, of course. I think that the responsibility for fire risk assessments of these buildings will fall largely to the commercial sector, and if that's possible through mechanisms that exist within Wales at present, that would be really helpful, not only in servicing the needs of these types of buildings, but to be able to pre-plan for the speed of introduction of the legislation and how it impacts upon us.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Peter.

Thank you. Good morning, all. Just a couple of little questions from me. Does the Bill give you sufficient powers to ensure compliance with the new regime?

I think the Bill does introduce more robust enforcement mechanisms. However, they're slightly different to how we actually work at this moment in time. It's going to be that uptake on how we move over and deal with certain issues that we deal with in commercial premises and have these alongside as well. I suppose it's getting the specialisms in those areas within each service. I know from a north Wales perspective that, certainly, on the legal side of things at this moment in time, we're probably at a critical stage because of shortfalls in the legal services that all three services have procured across Wales, and that's probably nationally as well, because we've had a certain provision in place for a number of years that has now been lost. So, we're all trying to afford those legal services again, and we're all trying to get a person, a number of persons in the legal sense, and it's quite difficult at this moment in time across the national scene.

Paul, did you want to come in here?

The key point for us is we work in partnership, and maybe it is not a point for the legislation itself, but we work in partnership with the BSA, and we've got a way of doing things together without duplicating work and a way of escalating the enforcement procedures together so we don't have any conflicting notices.

Thanks for that. You've covered some of the points I was going to ask about practical barriers stopping you using your enforcement or hindering it. Are there any other practical, obvious things that would get in the way of you using your enforcement powers?

I can't really see any. As we've alluded to previously, the ability to have powers to enter property is going to further support us. Currently, we don't have that under the fire safety Order, so that's going to support us in doing our duties and regulating buildings throughout the whole of a residential building rather than just the common parts, so the Bill will support us even further there.

Thank you. Moving on to Siân now, please.

Diolch, Siân. I'll go first here. As we've said from the outset, it's a very welcome piece of legislation, but it's clear that policy without resource is very difficult to implement, and, certainly from a fire and rescue perspective, it is. Obviously, we're aware of the funding model that we currently have and we are constrained by that model. The economic impact assessment suggests that the cost to fire and rescue authorities across Wales will be about £140,000, which equates to about two regulators, so once the on-costs are taken into account, it's about two to two and a half regulators for the whole of Wales, and we do feel that that is a little limited in its resource.

I spoke earlier about the risk-based inspection programme and the challenges that we have, certainly in mid and west Wales, of addressing the 44,000 premises that we currently have, and we only audit the riskiest risks. So, any reduction in the total number of regulators based on the new work that the building safety Bill will present will dilute and erode our ability to audit some of those premises. So, that's one part, I suppose: we don't feel that the proposed costings go far enough. I think we fed that back as part of our consultation responses prior to this inquiry session.

The other element is that I think the starting point from memory was 2027 in terms of the economic impact cost on fire and rescue authorities. In reality, when people come into our departments, they don't come with a full suite of qualifications. We have a blended model within the fire services, where will utilise uniformed officers and non-uniformed officers as regulators. Regardless, though, we tend to have to train them up from a baseline, and it takes about two to three years to train a regulator from no fire safety knowledge up to a competent standard, able to audit complex premises, which certainly would be the case in terms of the scope of this Bill.

We're already two to three years behind the starting point in as much as we should have been training regulators up now in readiness for the official launch of the Bill, whether that's in a phased approach or in a single approach. I hope that was helpful in terms of certainly part of that question.

Diolch. Just for our information, two new regulators for the whole of Wales—so, how many regulators would there be now in your area, in your region, perhaps, Siôn?

Currently, for example, in mid and west Wales, we have, as part of the regulatory team, 38 regulators covering the whole of mid and west Wales. So that's six unitary authority areas, 44,000 known premises and two thirds of the landmass of Wales. South Wales will have more of these buildings in scope, certainly category 1s, than we will have, and I think it's a sliding scale up to north Wales. We've had these conversations with colleagues previously. The scale of the workload is not known at this stage, but certainly from the impact of previous new fire legislation, the Fire Safety Act 2021, for example, we anticipate that the two regulators for Wales probably won't meet that demand.

Presumably, the 38 regulators will have extra duties. Would that impact the costings?

Some of them do. In terms of duties, some of our team are operational as well, so they have operational duties, but some of them are in civilian support roles as regulators, their only function is as fire safety regulators. But they also undertake additional duties, so we have healthcare teams and we have legal teams, there's a training element. Within that auditing and regulatory role, everybody has other functions that are critical to the delivery of the service.

What about the other regions? What do you think about two new regulators for the whole of Wales?

Just to echo some of Siôn's feelings there, it is still a little bit of an unknown. It was suggested, through engagement with the Welsh Government, that these are buildings that currently do fall under the fire safety Order. However, this new piece of legislation, this Bill, is specifically for residential, it's a piece of residential-specific legislation, and with that, as we've discussed, will come the need for us to assess fire risk assessments, the safety cases, different types of enforcement and regulation, and we've talked about the appeals process as well. So, it brings with it an extra piece of training and understanding from our staff that we have currently and the way they work. As we were talking about with Siôn, in preparation for that 2027, we need to be thinking and doing things now. But, still, for me, I feel that they haven't really fully costed what the potential could be for the impact on us as a department.

Sorry, Siân. Steven wanted to come in.

Sorry. I just wanted to put north Wales across as well. We've got a significantly smaller team, so whereas mid and west have got 38, and south Wales has got more again, in north Wales we run on a vastly reduced team; there are only 17 in our team across the department.

We're pretty much up to full capacity 100 per cent of the time, so any extra work we would have to be looking at at this moment in time. I think the Government's costings are a very good starting point, but I think they might underestimate the true financial and operational impact of the Bill. It could impact on long-term sustainability and funding gaps for the fire safety authorities.

Unfortunately, I think one of the things that we have had a round robin about is the charging power for building safety authorities within this, and the fact that none of that actually comes in to the fire and rescue services. Could part of that be a potential as well?

Yes, that was the question I was going to pursue, because the Bill does allow Ministers to bring forward regulations for the building safety structure, however that will look eventually, to raise fees, but not yourselves. So, presumably, you'd like to have that power as well, so that you can be raising fees.

Certainly, from north Wales, 'yes'. I think the costs within the forecast from Government are slightly on the low side. If you share that across Wales, it doesn't give any service one whole person. As Siôn has alluded to, it takes a number of years to get the skills up to competency. So, you would need one person, at least, in each service. I think the costings are slightly short on that side of things from the Welsh Government.

Has anybody got a view on the fees aspect?

I'd tend to agree with Steven. I think shared accrued revenue would be welcomed. We're already working to tighten the budgets and ensure efficiencies as best we can. I wouldn't want any shortfall there to impact the communities of south Wales or Wales in general.

When you say shared accrued revenue, it could be raised through the structure, the building safety authority, but you want some of that to come through to yourselves, rather than be able to raise the fees directly yourselves.

Yes.

Yes. Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

Did you want to add anything, Steven?

All I was going to add with regard to that and the charging of fees was that perhaps a certain percentage would go to the fire authorities.

Okay, thank you. Diolch, Siân. Do you think the duties that are being placed on accountable and principal accountable persons are reasonable and proportionate? Who'd like to go first? Paul.

Yes, we do believe they're reasonable and proportionate. On the Welsh Government's view that we should simplify duties to small buildings, we agree with that in principle, but we wouldn't want the light touch to be misinterpreted as optional guidance in the smaller buildings. But we do agree that they are reasonable and proportionate.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else?

I think they're also scalable. I think they're laid out in a manner, as I mentioned earlier on, that is very clear. So, for accountable persons and principal accountable persons, it leaves no ambiguity. It is scalable across the three categories. And adherence to the principles, again, as I mentioned earlier, should make sure that residents and firefighters are safeguarded. So, yes, we do welcome those.

Thank you. You have touched on this, Siôn, but I'd be interested in other people's views on this. The Welsh Government have said this new legislation will streamline and simplify fire safety duties for those bodies that are responsible for category 3 buildings. Do you agree with that?

Currently, in your category 3-type building, predominantly HMO types, they do have quite a lot of scrutiny at the moment, having to be licensed as well. So, they're already undergoing that sort of scrutiny through the Housing Act. So, I do believe that it simplifies it. It's just making sure that, as people have alluded to, it doesn't dilute that.

I think it is a good approach. I think we just need to have clarification of what 'streamlined' means in practice, just so it avoids under-regulation.

Thanks. Do you have any specific concerns about the impact this legislation will have on HMOs?

I think potentially, yes. Again, it goes into the under-regulation, what doesn't happen, and what isn't on every fire and rescue service's radar. What we're trying to create is a more robust system where, for most of the buildings that we encounter, we know the risk, we know everything around the building, we know how it's going to behave with fire, ultimately for public safety and firefighter safety. And if there are any omissions from that, then that will then create a greater risk for people.

Okay. Just finally from me: the golden thread of information, how do you think you will be able to access that information? Do you think it'll be simple? You mentioned digital concerns before, Steven. How do you think you'll be able to do it? Will there be challenges? Are there barriers? Will a new digital solution be needed?

I think, possibly, from our point of view—. I know all three services are going through digital transformation, and they have post COVID, in relation to a number of systems. There are systems out there that I know all three services are looking at in respect of determining building risk and producing and assisting with that risk-based inspection programme. It's highly likely all three could have the same system. We probably need a standardised system across all three. We probably need standard systems that align to the building safety authorities as well, I would actually indicate as well, because you want all that information to be in real time. You don't want any lag in information from one system feeding into another system and it having to be manually inputted or something like that. So, that's where, for me, with that digital transformation, you should have multiple software systems that talk, and, when there is a risk, that's immediately put to people, so that the public, the residents in the building, are aware, but also, like I alluded to before, on the firefighter safety aspect of things, so that, if there's any kind of fire in that building, we know the immediate risk.

You said it's 'likely' that the three systems will be the same—how likely?

I know that, at the moment, mid and west and south Wales have already moved to a recording system, or are in the process of doing that. We're currently on a different system, and we've just progressed to a working group—so, we're looking it over—for a new management system. There's one within the UK that is predominantly used by a number of services, and it is the predominant digital platform within the UK. So, there's a lot more functionality on that than what we currently have. So, there is a working group that's recently been set up, and we're in the early stages of investigating that in north Wales.

Okay. Thank you. Siôn.

In terms of accessing information, I think we all have—. The software system that's been alluded to is our risk management information software system, and that contains information about protection or commercial fire safety prevention or our community safety activities, as well as some operational intelligence information. It manages risk as a whole. I think the key element for us is where the golden thread information is held, and making sure that that can integrate seamlessly with our systems. Whatever the solution that is created is, it shouldn't be a double handling; it should be able to populate our systems. I also feel that we shouldn't be the custodians of that information—that should sit with the building safety authority, and that we receive only the information that we need to, as key stakeholders, effectively, with an interest in that information.

Okay. Thank you. And finally, Peter. 

Thanks. Just turning to residents now, I just wondered if you think the Bill has the right balance between residents' rights and their responsibilities.

Paul from south Wales. We believe the balance is broadly correct. Residents should have a right for complaints and engagement, whilst recognising that residents are key and fundamental in the responsibilities of not creating risk—so, reporting of problems of defective equipment. So, yes, we agree, and we think it is broadly the right balance.

Have you got any further views about residents complaining about anything that might involve the fire authority itself? Is the Bill clear enough on that, or is there anything you'd like to contribute on that?

I think it's important that their first point of contact, as long as it's not directly related to public safety, should be through the principal accountable person. We wouldn't want to become overwhelmed with issues between those two bodies.

Oh, we’ve lost the light; I shall move for a second.

Okay, as I was saying, we would like some form of barrier—that, as long as it's not directly related to public safety, the complaints go through the principal accountable person. We've currently got a complaints process, which we manage and we run efficiently. We've got a desk and a hotline and we allocate an officer to resolve complaints. It's something we're accustomed to.

Yes. Okay, that's all from me. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's brought this session to an end. We very much appreciate you coming this morning and giving your evidence. You will be sent a transcript to check, but thank you very much indeed. Diolch.

Diolch, thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll now have a 10-minute break.

Okay, welcome back everyone to Local Government and Housing Committee, and thank you to my colleague, Lesley Griffiths, for standing in as temporary Chair earlier in my absence.

We've reached item 4 on our agenda today then, our sixth evidence session on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill, and I'm very pleased to welcome John Marr, who is principal for devolved government and social housing for UK Finance. John, thank you very much for joining committee today to give evidence on the Bill. 

You're welcome, thank you. 

I'll begin then with some initial questions before we turn to other committee members. First of all, a general question, really. What's your overall view as to whether this Bill is needed?

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone. So, just to be clear that UK Finance and our members fully support the introduction of this Bill and its primary intention to substantially improve the safety of residential occupied buildings in Wales. We think it's absolutely right that the Senedd legislates in this way as part of its overall response in Wales to the tragic and needless loss of life at the events of the Grenfell Tower fire over eight years ago. It's absolutely right that people in Wales expect that the homes that they live in are safe, and we support the aims of this legislation to deliver that.

And I think it's also important to mention that we support the recognition in this Bill that ensuring safety is a shared responsibility, not only by building owners but by residents themselves, whether they're renters or owners. So, we're fully supportive of the introduction of the legislation and recognise that it's definitely needed in Wales, specifically in, I think, the Welsh context, where the built environment is quite different from that in England.

Thank you very much, John. That's very clear. In terms of that Welsh context, what's proposed in the Bill, of course, is different to what England have in place and are developing. In Wales, buildings below 18m high will be included in the provisions. Is that something that you're supportive of?

Well, as I mentioned, Chair, the built environment in Wales is quite different from that in England. The English environment is very much characterised by larger urban conurbations, much more dense housing developments, much taller buildings. The situation in Wales is quite different; there's a high proportion of much smaller, lower-rise buildings. So, I think it's important and correct that the regime that's proposed here in Wales reflects that with its three categories of buildings, obviously category 1 being the highest buildings and perhaps carrying the highest risk, category 2s mid-rise, if you like, and then the category 3, the much smaller rise, more traditional home that you might see in a Welsh town or city in terms of a converted Victorian house or a terraced property such as that. I think that's important and appropriate, that the legislation reflects those differences.

Previously—. I think there are questions about whether or not the approach here should follow that in England. I think it's always important that Wales does what's right for Wales, and devolution allows you to do that. So, it's quite appropriate, I think, that the legislation here is shaped in the way that it is.

Okay, thank you very much. One overriding difficulty, I guess, across the UK, John, and very much including Wales, is having enough supply of housing. Do you have any concerns that this Bill, if enacted as currently proposed, would have any detrimental impact on housing supply in Wales?

I think there are a lot of issues perhaps to consider and be aware of in respect of a potential impact on housing supply. So as not to be alarmist, I think it should be clear to say that I don't think there would be a direct impact on housing supply, but there could be implications in parts of the housing market or in some different tenures that might impact, for example, the home buying and selling process when we're looking at owner-occupied properties. In fact, in its inclusion of some HMOs, there could be an argument to suggest that that additional and further layer of regulation could compound some of the stresses that landlord businesses are facing. And whether or not they decide that they wish to continue in the market would obviously be a commercial decision for them. But if they were to leave, then there could be a reduction in the availability of quality housing stock in the private rented sector, and that could be a supply issue. Those issues I expect will be ones that representatives of landlord bodies and the PRS might wish to make to you.

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much, John. Peter Fox.

Chair, thank you. Good morning, John.

Good morning.

I just wondered if there had been any impacts on the finance side of things from the Building Safety Act 2022 and some learning that could be got from that that might be relevant to this Bill.

Thank you. So, the Building Safety Act 2022, in England, is quite different. Its regime applies, as you know, only to very high buildings—over 18m—and the extent to which the regulatory duties that it provides for, they are on building owners, so there's no direct exposure, for example, to mortgage lenders providing finance for the purchase of individual leasehold flats within those blocks. The ownership arrangements, as we know, for larger buildings tend to involve corporate entities, which could have within them the roles of accountable person and principal accountable person. It's always the case, I think, that building owners would be responsible for regulatory compliance, so we wouldn't expect there to be impacts directly for mortgage lenders, for example, in providing finance for individual flat purchases.

I would call out that some aspects of the Building Safety Act 2022 in England do have a positive impact in terms of mortgage finance. Specifically, I'd call out the leaseholder legal protections that are provided in the Act, which protect leasehold flat owners from cladding costs, which we'd all agree they shouldn't have to pay. But if we're talking about commercial finance for residential development, then the providers of that finance, funders, would always expect that their clients would be compliant with regulations in place at the time, and any non-compliance would be addressed. If there are issues, I think, with an inability to comply because of systemic problems, for example, with delays in respect of building regulation processes, then that could possibly slow down arrangements for the provision of finance to developers. That's perhaps something that you might be mindful of, because I'm aware that there have been discussions about the extent of resources required to stand up this regime here in Wales.

Thank you. I wanted to explore a little bit about how the Bill integrates with existing legislation. I know that, in your written evidence, you shared some concerns about how this legislation might fit alongside the Renting Homes (Wales) Act. I wonder if you could expand a little more on that for us.

So, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 is a very complex piece of legislation. I think we'd all recognise that. Certainly, the quite considerable number of regulations that have been made under that Act do mean that it's quite challenging, I think, for landlords and tenants, or contract holders, to navigate through all of the requirements and ensure that they comply where compliance is required.

In the context of the housing association sector, there is, as we know, an issue with technical non-compliance by some housing associations in respect of the provision of electrical safety certificates. There's a case in the High Court that is dealing with that at the moment. But that, I think, was a situation that was unintended—it wasn't expected at all. Unfortunately for the housing association sector, it has had a considerable impact in terms of drawing focus and attention away from the important matters of providing houses for social tenants to deal with that particular issue. There is, I think, a clause in this Bill that has similar provisions. We're talking about the provision of information to tenants and whether or not they are able to withhold rent if that information is not provided. I think I would just sound a note of caution to ensure that that provision, if it's taken forward, and the provisions of the Bill generally, work seamlessly with the complexities of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.

There are, of course, other pieces of legislation that are very much an overlapping patchwork quilt of provisions. We've got the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Housing Act 2004, the housing health and safety ratings system, and then, of course, there's the WHQS as well—the Welsh housing quality standard. These are all trying to achieve good outcomes for residents, but there is a challenge, I think, in making sure that, with the complexity of the arrangements that are already in place, on the statute book and otherwise, that people aren't unnecessarily tripped up in a way that is unintended and could have unforeseen consequences.

It could be seen as slightly overcrowded, the legislative arena, but we can't really unpick that, I suppose.

Possibly. Whether or not there's scope in this Bill to perform some sort of consolidation exercise is something that you might consider. I think, in earlier evidence from CIEH, they were of the view that there's quite a lot on the statute book and otherwise that enable some of the outcomes that this Bill is trying to achieve. So, the question is: do you need to consolidate or simplify? That's an issue for you to be advised on by the legal professionals, I guess.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Peter. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much. Do you think the duties that are going to be placed on accountable and principal accountable persons are appropriate? 

I think they are. I think there's also the question of proportionality, which is one that comes up quite often in debates around this. On that proportionality point, and on the point about appropriateness, I think a key to answering that is ensuring that those duty holders are appropriately supported in terms of training, resource and guidance, so that they can understand those duties and discharge them appropriately.

There are challenges, I think, with category 3 buildings, where you've got ordinary leasehold flat owners in a fairly standard block of low-rise flats, in terms of how they would understand what they're required to do under the new legislation, if it's introduced. And if you put yourself into the shoes of that sort of ordinary flat owner, how would you go about procuring a fire risk assessment? I mean, personally, I wouldn't know where to start.

So, what do you think we could do, so that they would know where to start? What do you think needs to be done?

Well, I think the Cabinet Secretary talked, in her evidence, about arrangements to support leaseholders through website portals, and whether or not Rent Smart Wales can be reconfigured in some way to provide that sort of advice, but also leasehold forums. I think there are a number of channels through which education can be provided and awareness raised. But that will all take time. It will all take resources and money. It would be important to make sure that all of that is in place in time for the go-live of these provisions and of these new duties.

There are, obviously, plans for a phased introduction, and I think that's probably right. A single, big-bang switch-on of all of it at once could potentially overwhelm landlords and owners as well. It's generally appropriate, but, on the point about proportionality, I would say it's proportionate, provided all of that other support infrastructure is in place in good time for implementation.

Okay. Thank you. In your written evidence, you outline concerns about unintended consequences for mortgage lenders if they were then identified as an accountable person. So, I wonder if you could explain what your concerns are, and how you—? Are you aware if that's what's happened in England?

So, this is very much in the context of a mortgage lender who has to repossess. And I would underline that repossession is always a last resort and that if a lender is faced with a customer who is struggling to pay their mortgage, for example, then they will always work with that customer to ensure the best possible outcome in their circumstances. If it gets to the stage where the mortgage account in simply unviable, then a lender may have to take possession. And, clearly, if there are any statutory duties or enforcement issues in respect of that property, then there is a potential that those duties could fall on the lender. I think the issue is—and, keeping in mind that the purpose is to ensure the best outcome for the customer—if compliance with an enforcement notice, for example, comes with a cost and a lender has to make arrangements for that enforcement to be dealt with, then ultimately that will come off, or be added to, the cost of the mortgage. So, there is that concern in making sure that the customer, if they have to exit the mortgage account, does so in a way that is as optimised for them as possible.

Just another, if I may, point on that is that, clearly, in some blocks of flats, lenders will have limited control and influence over what happens. So, there is the challenge that if a duty falls upon a lender, they may not necessarily have the control or influence within the block to be able to address it.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you, Chair, for that question. I think the—. I've got to put this down; slightly distracting. The cost assessment is, obviously, a very important part of this legislation, and I'm very much aware that, in previous evidence, this point has come up. The cost of standing up a regime as complex as this is going to need quite a lot of resources, particularly for local authorities, in terms of enforcement. And I think there is a concern that, given the state of local authority finances, they may struggle to deal with the responsibilities that are coming their way. I'll pause it there.

That's correct, yes.

I expect, ultimately, Chair, that the cost of complying with the measures would sit with the building owner. I mean, that would very much be the case in the scenario in England. Whether or not those costs are passed on to leaseholders I think depends on the legislative protections for that. As we know, leasehold law is very complex, but, generally, issues like this I think are shielded from leaseholders. Whether or not there are some aspects of the costs that would come down to leaseholders is quite a detailed issue. I would say, however, just in respect of some of the very small buildings, say, for example, category 3 buildings, the ability to pass on costs would be limited, essentially, because there could only be two or three or four owners in the block. So, in that respect, compliance would be a shared cost, and it could be that affording those costs could be more challenging if, for example, one resident out of three can't pay or refuses to pay, or if an accountable person or a shared freeholder is absent and unable to be contacted.

Well, I would expect that the building owners would shield their leaseholders, as far as possible, from those additional costs. If there are statutory protections from leaseholders from costs, then those would apply. But otherwise, if there are costs that have to be passed through, then you would expect that that would have an impact on a service charge account.

Do you think that there are statutory protections within this Bill, and does this Bill dovetail with some of the reforms coming through on the leasehold reform legislation from Westminster? Do you have a view on that?

Yes. So, leasehold reform and leasehold legislation is very, very complex. It's not an area of my expertise, but I would hope, in bringing this Bill forward, that you as legislators would be able to identify and ensure that there are appropriate protections for leaseholders for costs that they shouldn't have to bear.

Thank you. So, you'd be in favour of statutory protections within this Bill?

If that achieves a good and equitable outcome, as between freeholders and leaseholders, then, yes, we would support that.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Siân. John, just a couple of concluding questions from me, unless other committee members have anything further they wish to ask. If we go back to mortgage lenders as accountable persons, could you just clarify for committee how the Bill's provisions differ from current requirements and, in particular, when a mortgage lender repossesses a property, who takes on responsibility for fire safety currently?

This is an issue, Chair, about a duty that would be with a flat owner, whether that's a leaseholder or a freeholder or a sharing freeholder, and if a lender then becomes a title holder or the holder of a repairing obligation, then that duty would, technically, fall to them. As I've said previously, that's not something that lenders would necessarily welcome, particularly if they don't have sufficient control or influence to be able to discharge that duty, and so it's not something that they would ideally want to have. That applies across the board. So, say, for example, a flat in England, there might be a planning enforcement notice outstanding, a lender has to take possession of that property because the mortgage account is unviable, then, essentially, the lender would have to consider how best to take that proposition forward. They could either step in and address the non-compliance, or they could passport the property through and just sell it as it is, for example sell it on auction, 'buyer beware', so that the obligation to sort the issue would be taken up by the new incoming buyer. That could result in a cost reduction, a 'sold as seen' basis, so that an incoming buyer would essentially have to address the issues, rather than the lender addressing the issues.

If we think about the context of rented properties, the buy-to-let scenario, and the landlord falls into difficulty, again, the lender could either possess the property, or they could appoint an Law of Property Act 1925 receiver, a receiver of rent, who would essentially step into the shoes of the landlord and manage and run that property as if they were the landlord. In that case, the receiver would then have to address the requirements of the duties under this Bill, and the cost of doing that would be set against the mortgage. So, ultimately, it would still be a cost that would be picked up by the buy-to-let landlord.

Okay, thank you very much, John. John, just finally, then, is there anything else at all that you'd like to put on the record, or tell the committee, about the Bill and its provisions in general? Anything at all?

Well, as I said, I think this is the right sort of legislation that Wales should be taking forward. It reflects the specific configuration of the built environment in Wales. There are, I think, issues that I know that you’re addressing in respect of resourcing, and the ability of local authorities to undertake the new rules that will be coming to them. There is, as I’ve said, always a challenge in terms of local authority resources and making sure that they have the funds that they need to be able to do these duties.

Another point just to record, I think, is that there will be a supply and demand issue in terms of access and availability of fire risk assessors to a lot of the assessments that will be required, particularly on lower-rise buildings. And when you get those supply and demand issues, there could be a rise in cost for procuring a fire risk assessment for a fairly ordinary property in a typical street in Wales, and, obviously, that will be an additional cost for the owners and the responsible people in that block.

There’s a training and resource issue there as well. And the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in their evidence, indicated that it’s something that they may be able to support with, in terms of ensuring that there are more fire risk assessors who are qualified and competent to be able to do those things.

I think finally, just in respect of that point of competence, not only will it be challenging, I think, for ordinary owners of leasehold flats to know how to go about procuring a fire risk assessment, it will be challenging for them to understand what that assessment is saying, and to know what to be able to do to address it. But there will also be challenges, I think, in understanding the qualifications and the competence of the person who’s coming forward to do that assessment. So, I would suggest, if there is some way of providing a register of qualified assessors et cetera, as part of the package of support for leaseholders, then that could be a positive step forward, otherwise one can envisage a scenario where there could be a number of less scrupulous people offering to do fire risk assessments and not necessarily having the qualifications and the competence to do so.

Okay, John, thank you very much. If there are no further questions from any other committee member, then it just remains for me to thank you very much for coming in to give evidence to committee today, John, and to tell you that you will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy.

Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr.

Our next item, then, item 5, is the motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting and from item 1 of the meeting on 9 October. Is committee content so to do? I see that you are. We will move into private session.