National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. We have an evidence session today with the Cabinet Secretary. We have here with us, in terms of committee members, Lee Waters, and, joining us remotely, Siân Gwenllian, Laura Anne Jones and Peter Fox. We've received apologies from Lesley Griffiths. Welcome, everyone, to this meeting. As ever, it's bilingual and simultaneous translation is available. The meeting is being held in hybrid format. Are there any declarations of interest from committee members? There are not.

We will move on to item 2, which, as I say, is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary. Would you like your officials to introduce themselves for the record?

Absolutely. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

I'm Jo Newth, legal services.

Tania Nicholson, deputy director for housing quality and senior responsible officer for this legislation.

Kim Phelps, head of building safety occupation phase policy.

Steve Pomeroy, head of fire services.

Thank you all for coming in to give evidence to committee this morning. Perhaps I might begin with some general questions on the approach that the Welsh Government has taken to this legislation. Firstly, Cabinet Secretary, could you briefly outline why you believe this Bill is needed, and why you are taking a different direction to that in England?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. The current regulatory system covering safety in multi-occupied buildings isn’t fit for purpose. The failings were very much laid bare following the Grenfell tragedy and the subsequent reviews and inquiries that have taken place since then.

This Bill will fundamentally transform safety in multi-occupied residential buildings across Wales. It will bring about a comprehensive reform that protects residents and others through regular assessments and proper management of building safety risks. The Bill forms part of a much wider programme of work taken forward since the Grenfell tower tragedy. That’s aimed at ensuring that all residential buildings in Wales are as safe as possible and that those who call those buildings their home feel safe.

The differences between what we're proposing to do here in Wales and in England reflect the different landscape and context that we have here in Wales. As you'll know, in England, there are about 12,500 high-rise buildings. In Wales, we have 180 of those buildings, so it's a different context with those buildings. So, focusing just on buildings 18m and above wouldn't really make sense in our context in Wales. 

Many of the safety aspects, though, are similar, regardless of the size of the buildings. Statistically, we know that fire casualties are proportionally more likely to occur in houses in multiple occupation and buildings converted into flats. That's why we're looking to take this approach here in Wales, but the contrast with England is very much on the different landscapes. Bringing forward any legislation that's appropriate for Wales, obviously, is absolutely important, and the UK Government has taken the approach it has for England in that context.

Chair, could I just jump in on that? I just want to test the logic of that, because what the Government is essentially saying is that Wales is different and we don't have as many large buildings, therefore we'll find some other buildings that we'll regulate instead, because we must be seen to be regulating. Isn't it an argument that there should be a proportionate and risk-based approach to regulation? If England has decided that only those over seven floors, I think it is, are the ones that really deserve the attention of the state, why is it that Wales is going beyond that and introducing more regulation than is seen necessary elsewhere?

Absolutely, Lee, I understand that position. As I outlined, there are those fire risks within HMOs and smaller buildings that we know exist. We are following the aspect of the buildings being of a higher level, but we see that being more proportionate here in Wales. So, there is a risk to other buildings, and we have more of those smaller buildings here in Wales. We want to make sure that everyone's covered in that way. We are not saying that we'll do things the same for the highest risk buildings as we will do for the lower risk buildings. It will be a proportionate approach, and that's the way we're taking here in Wales.

Chair, would it be okay if I just pursued this for a second? Because what I'm concerned about is the cumulative drag of different regulations and its impact on social housing supply. We have the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, we have the fire sprinklers, we now are going to be extending building safety beyond where it's going to be in England. And we already know that one of the problems we have in having enough social housing for people on the very long waits is that landlords are withdrawing from the market and they're saying that the regulations are too onerous, particularly the Welsh housing quality standard. Have you considered, in the round, within that context, the additional burdens you are putting on home owners and the effect that might have, unwitting, unintended as it may be, on the problem we already have in freeing up homes for social rent?

I very much understand there's a lot within this space, within housing at the moment. I do speak regularly to all of the sector around this, and they do raise the issues that you've said today. But I just think, in the context of what we're talking about with this Bill, we know that this Bill has come from these many inquiries following the tragedy at Grenfell. We know how important that is, and there is a cost to doing nothing. Just because something hasn't happened at the moment, it doesn't mean that that won't happen in the future. To have that regulation is really important, because we have to learn the lessons from what happened at Grenfell. For example, the average cost of damage from a single dwelling fire is £30,000, and that rises to 10 times that much if reconstruction is needed. So, there is a real cost to doing nothing, and that's without the human cost behind it. I think the sector understands that. This has been a long time in the making, this building safety Bill, and we are responding to those inquiries through this.

Sure, but my point is about the cumulative impact of the regulation, and there are other risks to weigh against. There are risks to 3,000 children being in bed and breakfasts, aren't there, who can't have access to a home because there isn't supply, and you may be here further restricting the supply. Have you made any impact assessments in the round about the potential consequences this has to supply?

We've not had any evidence from England that the regime is negatively affecting the housing market—

But they're not doing this in England.

No, but when you're talking about some of the higher risk buildings, we have no evidence for that, and I don't have any evidence at the moment that that would be the case. So, unless—

I'm talking about category 3 buildings, which they're not doing in England.

But it's not the same proportion. We would not treat the category 3 buildings the same way we would be treating category—

No, but you're still introducing additional burdens on potential landlords, which is not happening in England.

But that will be proportionate to this.

Forgive me, Minister, but this regulation is not happening in England, on a market that's already struggling with supply, so it's not proportionate, it's additional.

But this will be proportionate to the risk, we feel—

The fire risk, but I'm asking you about the overall risk to housing supply and the additional cumulative burdens. 

I think that's a more general point, isn't it, the other risks. But absolutely, I understand that there is a lot within this space, but I do very much believe that this is the right thing to do. I think the risk is there. We’re always keen to talk more about supply, and we are really, as you know, focusing very much on supply.

I'll finish on this, but it seems to me the answer to my question is ‘no’. There's no joined-up thinking here about the effect this would have on supply.

There's no evidence that that would impact supply, and we're obviously still working through the process if that becomes apparent. But there is no evidence that we have that that would impact supply. I believe that people have that right to feel safe in their own home, and this is something that would benefit those people who will become safe and will feel safe in their own home.

If we move on, we know that the Bill will provide powers for substantial subordinate legislation in some 65 areas. I wonder, given that reliance on subordinate legislation under this Bill, whether you could tell us, Cabinet Secretary, how many of these regulations will need to be in place for the effect of the Bill to be fully implemented. What's the expected timetable for implementation?

Diolch. We are planning for a phased commencement of the regulations under the Bill. Our statement of policy intent sets out those regulation-making powers that we're considering that are not likely to be required for implementation but may be required in the longer term, for instance to reflect changes in the built environment. But phasing commencement will importantly allow local authorities and duty holders to acclimatise and adjust to the new regime, and for consultation with the wider public and stakeholders to take place. This phased approach does recognise the large number of in-scope buildings. I expect the registration of category 1 buildings to be introduced in the first phase in 2027. Category 2 registration is expected to commence in early 2028, with category 3 duties expected to follow later in that year. I think this approach will let us have a smooth transition, recognising that we need to make sure that there is plenty of awareness raising and preparedness for this to be a success.

Thank you for that. One of the key lessons of that terrible tragedy at Grenfell was the lack of engagement and empowerment of the residents there. In England, the Building Safety Regulator is required by legislation to convene a residents' panel and to consult with them on certain matters. You haven't taken the decision, in terms of what's on the face of the Bill, for a similar residents' panel here in Wales, so could you just explain that, please? 

Resident voice is absolutely crucial to this Bill. It is one of the three tenets of the Bill as well, so we place huge importance on that. We've already established routes to engage with leaseholders, for example through our leaseholder and residents group. My officials have conducted extensive engagement with residents throughout the making of this policy to ensure that the voice of residents and a broad representation of leaseholders and tenants are heard, and those with lived experience considered as well.

Obviously, there are different ways to engage, and the widest range of voices is really important. You can use surveys, focus groups. Sometimes a panel can limit the number of people, voices, that can be heard, but be assured that resident voice is very much at the forefront of what we're doing. We'll ensure we consult with residents using the most effective means possible, and we'll continue to work with our stakeholders, including housing associations and local authorities, throughout this. But local authorities are also very well placed themselves to engage with tenants and residents, and they are very experienced at doing so, but I'm happy if anybody wants to come in and say a bit more about the engagement through this process that we've had. 

Yes, it's about how we can have confidence, really, that it will happen. 

We didn't feel that provision was necessarily needed in the Bill to require this. This is something we'd probably want to do anyway in terms of ensuring that resident voice is heard. As the Cabinet Secretary said, we've done extensive engagement with the residents, different resident groups, across the policy development process, really, and that's involved some focus groups, some wider research, a survey. We've really listened very broadly to what residents are telling us, and that will continue then as, through the course of the policy development process, we'll make sure that we engage with housing associations and local authorities and leaseholder and resident groups as we move forward towards subordinate legislation.

But will there be nothing formal in terms of what's on the face of the Bill and secondary legislation?

It's not our intention to include any provisions within the Bill, but what we will be doing is producing a code of practice as well, which will support enforcing authorities to ensure a consistent approach to the delivery model of regulation. Within that, we will emphasise the importance then of that resident voice and ensuring that residents are engaged with throughout that delivery process.

In England, the residents' panel will be consulted on secondary legislation and guidance to help shape that. So, in terms of secondary legislation and guidance under this legislation, will that approach that you've just mentioned apply there?

It will. As I say, we've taken a very inclusive approach, I would say, in terms of ensuring that we're engaging continuously throughout the policy development process. We've held webinars, we've held different meetings with different representative groups, and that will continue as we head towards secondary legislation and guidance.

But there won't be anything set out, then, on the face of the Bill or in secondary legislation to say that that must happen.

No, but that is obviously part of our fundamental principles, having resident voice at the heart of this. We are looking at ways that we can continue that engagement throughout the time, because, as I say, their voice is so important, and we know from Grenfell that that was not the case, and that is something, lessons, that we must learn.

I went recently to Merthyr Valleys Homes and spoke to residents there who are very happy with the engagement that they've had with their tenants, or the tenants are very happy with the engagement they've had with the housing association, and seeing how that can work really, really well. But very much the tenant's voice, resident's voice, has to be at the heart of this, and part of the whole point of this is that we're strengthening the voice and strengthening the accountability for those residents who live in those properties.

So, we're looking at ways that we can continue to engage. I think having a panel, sometimes, that becomes—. It's not always the best way to get everybody's voice heard; Sometimes, you end up with one group of people. But we need to keep ensuring we're listening to all those voices, and to make sure everybody has an opportunity to have their say through that. But there are some really good examples of resident engagement already, and I think the development of the Bill has shown that we are very much keen to hear from residents.

Okay. Laura Anne Jones. 

Diolch, Chair, and good morning, Cabinet Secretary. In terms of the scope of the regime, I think you've already answered my first question, which was what was the reasoning behind the three categories. But, if you've got anything further to add, that would be fantastic. But the Grenfell inquiry phase 2 report recommended that the vulnerability of residents should form part of the definition of a high-risk building. Have you decided against this approach now, or do you intend to introduce it in regulations? Diolch. 

Diolch, Laura, and just to say, just around the categories, we did have stakeholder feedback that has been broadly supportive of adopting the approach, and recognising having that greater flexibility in achieving that proportionate balance between regulation and cost for residents. That was why we came to that point.

On your second question, the new regime will capture the vast majority of multi-occupied residential buildings, regardless of height. So, our regime will provide protection to vulnerable residents of any multi-occupied building. As I say, that's said in our response to the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. We have committed to keeping the definition of high-risk buildings for the design and construction phase of buildings under review, and that'll be informed by ongoing engagement with UK Government on implementation of the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. So, any changes to the design and construction definition of a high-risk building may have an impact on the regime provided for in the Bill. So, this Bill does allow for the definition of categories to be revised in future, if necessary.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. The Bill provides that houses in multiple occupation, HMOs, will be subject to fire duties, but not wider building safety duties. Why have you chosen this approach, given that the White Paper proposed that the HMOs should be subject to the full requirements of the safety regime, including the building safety?

So, we consulted extensively with stakeholders on the application of duties in HMOs. HMOs are already subject to comprehensive regulation and oversight by local authorities, so they're already captured by Rent Smart Wales registration and licensing requirements. Most HMOs are subject to the HMO management regulations, and many larger HMOs are subject to HMO licensing requirements. So, we have, we believe, taken a proportionate approach to the application of the duties on HMOs, but our primary focus has been to ensure that relevant HMOs are subject to the new fire safety duties, responding to that primary task. So, we feel it's therefore unnecessary to subject them to the Bill's requirement for registration.

Okay, thanks. The Bill doesn't create any new powers or duties in relation to the remediation of existing safety risks. Why have you chosen not to include any new powers or duties in the Bill in relation to the remediation of existing safety risks? Diolch.

So, the Bill and our remediation programme are separate programmes, but, obviously, it's not correct to say that the Bill has no bearing on existing safety risks. So, the Bill will require accountable persons to take all reasonable steps to manage fire and structural safety risks, including but not limited to those identified as part of the risk assessment. So, that duty will apply to existing risks. Perhaps Steve can give an example.

Excuse me. As the Cabinet Secretary says, what is required of accountable persons for all categories of buildings under this Bill, at least in my space, in the fire space—excuse me—is a regular fire risk assessment and a duty to act on it. So, if, hypothetically, we have, I don't know, a four-storey block of flats that is thus outside the Welsh Government's remediation programme, and the fire risk assessment concludes there is a modest amount of combustible cladding on the outside of it, say, the spandrel panels, or something like that, and identifies that as a risk and recommends remediating it, the accountable person will be obliged to take reasonable steps to do so. That could mean taking the cladding off, it could mean replacing it with something else, it could mean other measures within the building to limit the spread of fire. But they would have to do one of those things as regards a defect that exists in the building now. If they didn't do one of those things, well, that is enforcement territory, and I think, depending on the scale of the risk, it could be grounds for prohibiting use of the building altogether or prosecuting the accountable person. So, there is a mechanism in there that deals with existing defects in buildings of all heights and all categories.

Okay. Thank you for that. Diolch, Chair.

Okay. And Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch, Siân. Absolutely. In Wales, there is a route to remediation for in-built fire safety defects in all buildings over 11m high, as you know, and this commitment extends to both internal and external fire safety issues. And we have been clear that leaseholders in buildings over 11m should not pay to rectify fire safety issues that are not of their making.

I absolutely understand that this has been a piece of work that’s been in train for a long time. I met with developers on 9 June the last time to speak with them about this and set the expectation that I have around the speed of the programme. And I'm, obviously, as you are, and as many are, keen to see that pace in the system. So, I’ve received a commitment from all developers that have signed the Welsh Government contract that works on all their developments in Wales will have at least started by the end of 2026. So, I think I am—

So, what happens if they haven't? What happens if they haven't started by the end of 2026? Is that commitment a legally binding commitment that you've had now from these developers?

It’s not legally binding, but we are working really hard with the developers, with this date. They see it as a challenging date, but we are doing everything we can. My officials, just to put on record as well, have regular discussions, on almost, well, not a weekly, but probably a daily, basis, on some of these schemes. We’re working really hard to see where we can unlock anything or unblock anything. Developers know that as well. Leaseholders know that. We have regular discussions with leaseholders and residents as well. We’ve got two different forums in which they’re able to have their voice. But we have had the commitment—this is what I have said—that this has to be started by the end of 2026. I don’t know if Tania wants to say a little bit more about those discussions that you had.

You will understand the frustration of people— 

Yes. 

—and the worries of people where the work hasn't started, and that is on two thirds of these buildings. It's not as if it's a small proportion where the work hasn't started. The situation is very, very worrying, and I'm looking today for some kind of reassurance. But, without those legally binding contracts, I'm not sure that we are going to see much progress in this area. 

I'll just bring Tania in, and then I'll come back. Tania. 

Diolch, Siân. So, we're about, Siân, to release our latest quarterly newsletter, which shows some really positive progress in terms of the remediation programme. We can track the progress from the last newsletter, for example, where projects are moving to the next phase within the phase of particular work programmes. I think, as the Cabinet Secretary said, each development, each building, has its own challenges, and my team are really well sighted across the board in terms of our remediation programme. They, as the Cabinet Secretary says, meet really regularly with all parties, and the role of my team is to identify what the specific challenges are with specific developments and to support all parties to reach agreements and solutions and move to the next stage. So, I completely take your point. Everybody would like to see more pace, but just to kind of recognise those really complicated scenarios, which are different across the board, which we’re trying to understand and then work with parties to find solutions on.  

I've also instructed developers to have an engagement and comms plan as well, because I think it's really important that that engagement happens, and that needs to be better, so that people understand what is actually happening within their buildings, within their properties. So, I think that's something that will be an important step going forward. 

But I'm meeting the Cladiators next week, I believe. So, I continue to have those discussions. The groups are very much involved with officials, so we are listening to those. I meet developers regularly to make sure that pace is happening as best it can be, and this is something that I feel we have to continue alongside this Bill, because this isn't something that sits within this Bill, but this is a piece of work that has been ongoing and that we continue to put a huge amount of energy and effort into, as you would expect that we would.

You're saying that this is not part of this Bill. Why isn't there strong provision in this Bill to make sure that people who are held up in this process of remediation can actually challenge the situation?

There are provisions within the Welsh Government's contract with the 12 developers that have signed, where if they are not complying with the terms of those contracts, then there are opportunities for legal action, if it comes to that. We regularly meet with developers, as the Cabinet Secretary said, and we are monitoring their adherence with those contracts. And if it comes to light that there is a breach of the terms of those contracts, then there is an opportunity to take legal action in that way. So, there are opportunities in that space beyond the Bill.

Okay, but it could have been put into the Bill.

We've got this route already, and I think that is where that best sits. This Bill is dealing with this part for the future and the occupation phase of the building, so that's why it sits outside of that, but there are those legal routes already that exist.

Diolch, Siân, and apologies if I misunderstood. There are always lots of questions in those contributions, so apologies for that. The main cost for the Welsh Government is estimated to be £21.4 million at present value for the residential property tribunal. The estimate is uncertain and possibly on the high side, but officials are working with officials in the Welsh Tribunals unit to fully understand additional resource implications, and through the phased implementation period we will keep that cost under review.

The main costs for local authorities are going to arise out of the category 1 and 2 buildings, of which there are only about 629 throughout Wales. For local authorities' costs, that will include registration of £2.3 million, resident complaints £1.3 million, building certificates £0.6 million, and enforcement £0.3 million. The fire and rescue authorities already have similar enforcement functions as the Bill confers on them, so the estimated cost to them will be less than 1 per cent of their total revenue.

It's an estimate in terms of the Welsh Tribunals unit. So, that's understanding that additional resource implication. We're uncertain about that, but are working on that as we go through the process of the Bill, but obviously it's more—. We're likely to do it on the higher side, just to make sure that we cover everything.

Do you understand my point, though, about how it looks as if the split is wrong, because most of the work will fall to the local authorities?

The costs in the regulatory impact assessment, Siân, came from Adroit Economics. We commissioned external research and development in the impact assessment space, and these costs have come from that process. So, they've come from engagement with partners. We are now going through a process of testing those costs, so that includes internal work with the Welsh Tribunals unit to understand what additional capacity they might need to respond to the new regime. And then also, it includes quite intensive work with local government and other key partners to understand the capacity and resource implications of the new regime. I'm sure we'll get on to talking about the work that we're doing to plan for implementation.

Diolch, Siân. I'm committed to ensuring that we protect residents from those excessive costs, which is why the Bill ensures that any costs passed on to residents via service charges must comply with existing protections. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes requirements for what costs can be taken into account when determining the amount of service charge payable. These requirements are that the costs are reasonably incurred and that the service is of a reasonable standard. So, these provisions will ensure that excessive costs are not permitted to be passed on to leaseholders.

I suppose how you define 'excessive' and 'reasonable' and all that comes to mind.

The new regime will benefit all residents, including those at most risk, such as older people, disabled people and single-parent households. We estimate that the cost of the new regime will be greatest in the category 1 buildings. Even so, the costs may be significantly lower in social housing, where a building owner will, in practice, already be complying with many of the new duties. We are aware of that. There are protections at the moment, but I very much assure you that I'm committed to protecting residents from excessive costs.

Diolch, Siân. Peter.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Sorry I'm not there with you. I want to talk a little bit about accountable persons. As we already know—we've talked about it—there is this new category, category 3, which includes smaller buildings. I'm quite anxious that there may be consequences or things that prohibit people perhaps from expanding into what would become category 3. I think I have some anxieties, a bit like Lee, in a way. If somebody wanted to create some additional housing by, say, converting their townhouse to include three or four residences, would the issues of accountability be so onerous that they would actually stop them coming forward? I suppose that's one of those unintended consequences that we won't know, and that we will have to monitor and perhaps alter accordingly. I just wondered what work you might have done with potential owners of category 3 buildings, just to ensure that the duties aren't too onerous.

Diolch, Peter. As you can imagine, engagement has been central in the development of the Bill. The introduction of category 3 is primarily due to that feedback, including from the White Paper consultation—so, feedback that the category 2 model was too broad and that that would result in requirements for smaller blocks of flats that were too onerous and potentially too costly. That's why we have introduced three categories. Those three categories take a proportionate approach to the introduction of duties.

The additional duties, such as the duty to prepare a safety case report, have been placed on those responsible for category 1 buildings. For category 3 buildings, the duties will be focused solely on fire safety risks. We have had, as Tania said, a series of engagement webinars and events over recent months, and we have listened very much to that feedback. The three-category approach has been broadly welcomed by the sector; again, recognising that it has that greater flexibility and provides that proportionate approach. I don't know if any officials want to say a bit more about the engagement. Steve.

Not about the engagement specifically, Cabinet Secretary, but I think it's worth recalling that buildings in category 3, which are those under 11m, are subject to fire safety provisions now. They are subject to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which was designed for workplaces, and it shows. It works very well for workplaces, but it is full of provisions about fire drills and training staff and dangerous chemicals and all this kind of stuff that is really very hard to apply to a small block of flats or a converted townhouse.

The duties that we're bringing in in the Bill will replace that, I hope, because it's been years in the making, with something that is simpler and easier for landlords to understand and apply and follow. I'm not saying that it's all a bed of roses and everything will become dead easy for them, but they are subject to requirements now and we're making them, I hope, more streamlined in the Bill. And that's the only requirement that the Bill puts on them; they don't have to register et cetera, as the Cabinet Secretary says, they don't have to produce a safety case and so forth. So, hopefully, it's a process of simplification rather than imposing a burden.

From the engagement so far, it would seem that the majority of people who you've consulted are quite comfortable with that way forward, that level of regulation on them in category 3. Obviously, we will hear more from them when we take further evidence. 

But if we look at that registration situation, as we've just heard, there is no registration on category 3 buildings and their accountable persons. I'm playing devil's advocate, really. What if a resident in a category 3 building can't identify who their accountable person is? If there's a building that is full of owner-occupied residents, who's the accountable person?

Diolch, Peter. It's more likely, in a smaller building, that residents may themselves be an accountable person for the building, or at least that they would know who the accountable person is personally, when compared with a category 1 or a category 2 building. We intend to make regulations requiring accountable persons to give specified information to—amongst other people—residents and owners of residential units. In these regulations, we plan to require accountable persons to identify themselves to residents, and should they fail to do so, they would be in breach of the duty, and ultimately the enforcing authority would be able to take enforcement action against them. If enforcement action was required and the accountable person has not identified themselves, a search of HM Land Registry may provide the information required, such as the name, address and the common parts. That's something for those smaller buildings, but they're more likely to know each other within that building.

But let's say there's a building with three equal owned premises in them and the individuals own the building. Does this fall away then? Are they all accountable for themselves and then don't have to worry about their neighbours, or are those three jointly accountable people? For instance, perhaps one becomes a tenant and there definitely is a need to find an accountable person. Do the other two then become the accountable people?

You get used to calling them APs and PAPs at some point. I feel like I'm getting used to it, but yes, I realise this is—[Interruption.] I know, I agree. If you can find a better name, I'm keen to hear that from the committee.

Sections 8 and 9 of the Bill define who is an accountable person and who's the principal accountable person. For many smaller buildings, these definitions will work to identify the accountable person and principal accountable person. For example, where leaseholders together own through a company the common parts, then the company will generally be identified as the principal accountable person. But, again, where, for example, joint owners are identified as the principal accountable person, the intention is that, together, they will be responsible for complying with the duties and will be liable if those duties are not complied with. If all the common parts of a building were owned jointly by a number of long leaseholders, they would, together, be principal accountable persons. Regulations may also be made to address other ownership models to ensure that the right people are identified as accountable persons and principal accountable persons.

Thanks. I think that clarified my point, because I'm still not 100 per cent sure if everybody is an owner-occupier in the place, is there a need for an accountable person because they're all, by default, accountable people? So, there's some ambiguity around some of the elements that assume that everybody's a tenant and there's somebody who's going to be responsible, but there are going to be situations where everybody's an owner and of equal standing. So, I think you might have captured it there, but—

I tell you what, Peter, I'll try and see if Kim is better able to define that as well. If not, we can make sure the committee has it in writing.

Thank you, Peter. I mean, I think what you've just highlighted is the complexity that exists within building ownership; we recognise that complexity. As the Cabinet Secretary said, there are definitions in the Bill that will enable people to identify themselves as accountable persons or principal accountable persons. There will always be an accountable person identified. Who that person may be or what that company may be, or whatever, will obviously depend on the different ownership models in place, where the repairing obligations sit, where the parts are demised to certain residents. So, I'm not sure there's a clear answer to your question, but just to say that there will always be an accountable person.

With regard to the identity of that person and them being made known to residents, I think, as the Cabinet Secretary said, there will be mechanisms to enable residents to identify that person. We assume that in category 3 buildings they will be more likely to have that direct relationship with their residents in those scenarios. But there are avenues for them to obtain that information through regulations, should that not be immediately obvious.

I think this is going to be a dilemma you will need to find a way to address, because this ambiguity will manifest, and there needs to be that advice to help people manage their way through that. Anyway, I'll move on, Chair—

Peter, just before you do—

Sorry.

No, only one minute, I think Lee wants to come in at this point.

Yes, forgive me, Peter, I think we've hit upon a hornet's nest here. The fact that you say, Kim Phelps, that this is not clear and straightforward is kind of the point we should be concerned about, isn't it? Also, this is another point where this is not going to be happening in England. This is a layer of complexity, confusion and potential cost that I was alluding to earlier that may have other unintended consequences.

I'm not sure about this bucolic idea that people living in four-storey blocks of flats all know each other and it's going to be easy for them to get along. We're going to create significant conflict between neighbours here, potentially. What if somebody in a four-storey block of flats doesn't want to become an accountable person? Because as Steve Pomeroy said earlier, these people can be prosecuted and presented with summons and so on. This is a significant responsibility and burden you're pressing here. Have you thought about the situation where it's not going to be straightforward? Why would somebody want to take this on?

It's already about who is responsible for the repairing rights and the legal responsibility within that building now. So, they're the ones who would have that responsibility. They are responsible in that way already to an extent, aren't they? But I absolutely understand and agree with you. We all like to think everybody gets on, and they don't.

I think the most important thing, though, is how information is shared between residents to know who is that accountable person if something goes wrong. Because as we saw from—. And I recognise this is in a different circumstance to Grenfell, when it was a larger building, but we've heard how fire safety risks exist very much in areas such as HMOs. It is important to know who is accountable for that, because you can't hide behind something like what happened at Grenfell, unfortunately. So, I think it is around—. I'm right in saying that, hopefully, Kim. It is about who has legal responsibility for the building already.

Yes.

Thank you. 

Okay. Peter. 

I think we could go around this one for a long time, because I could find quite a lot of counter arguments on it, but I would just bear it in mind that it is a consequence, I think, that you'll have to prepare for.

I was just going to—. I think we've heard some of the rationale of why perhaps category 3s are treated differently to categories 1 and 2, but the Bill requires accountable persons in category 1 buildings to establish and operate a system for investigating complaints, but the equivalent systems for categories 2 and 3 are going to be established by regulations. I just wonder why residents' complaints will be treated differently in categories 2 and 3 compared to those in category 1. 

Thanks, Peter. Again, as I said, residents are very much at the centre of this and their voice is part of the three aims of the Bill. So, the Bill does empower residents with clear routes of redress and a stronger voice in matters that affect their home. As I say, it does take a proportionate approach, assigning duties across different building categories, except for category 2 and 3 buildings, which will vary in size and complexity, where it is appropriate to use regulation-making powers to develop tailored complaints arrangements. So, applying the same statutory duty systems for category 1 buildings risks placing an undue administrative and financial pressure on both residents and accountable persons in smaller buildings.

So, the Bill does ensure that all residents, regardless of building type, have access to clear and robust mechanisms for raising complaints. For example, we've looked at making sure this is proportionate. So, in category 3 buildings, such as one made up of just two flats, where the accountable person and residents are likely to know each other, a proportionate complaint system might simply involve providing a phone number or e-mail address for residents to raise concerns with the accountable person, just keeping a basic record. A category 1 building may involve many more residents, so a more formal system with multiple accessible routes for making complaints is necessary, and that, naturally, comes with those higher administrative and financial costs. But, ultimately, all residents, in all buildings, in all categories will have the ability to escalate complaints to the building safety authority, to ensure a consistent and fair route to redress on the building safety risks. 

Thank you. I can see there's a greater risk obviously in a category 1 building, and that could be a lot of people to try to contact and engage with. So, thank you for that. Obviously being an accountable person, be it a principal accountable person or an accountable person, you've got significant responsibilities, very significant responsibilities. I just wondered what sort of support you're planning to help them fulfill those responsibilities. 

Thank you. Many principal accountable persons and accountable persons will require that support and guidance. So, we'll provide them with comprehensive guidance to support them in their new roles. There will not be competence requirements placed on accountable persons. So, instead, the Bill ensures that competence requirements are applied when they are most needed, by ensuring the fire risk assessment is undertaken by a competent person. If an accountable person requires expert advice, then of course they should be able to obtain that advice. But, in many cases, we know that agents of the accountable person will, in practice, undertake the duty. So, the Bill ensures that the line of accountability is not blurred in scenarios. So, the accountable person remains responsible for complying with the duties and is liable to enforcement action being taken if they don't. So, the Bill introduced a requirement for fire risk assessments to be undertaken only by a competent person, as I said. Particular requirements, such as particular qualifications, can be detailed in those regulations.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Okay. The White Paper proposed introducing a registration and licensing scheme for all residential property management agents. Why did you decide not to include it in the Bill?

Peter, the White Paper, as you said, did consider that. However, it recognised that, for the scheme to be effective, it would need to cover all the property management activities, including the management of freehold estates, which is outside the scope of the Bill. Property management agents provide a wide range of services and are not limited to building safety, so any regulation or licensing scheme should capture all their property management activities across the range of properties they manage.

You might have noticed that I am consulting at the moment with UK Government on introducing minimum qualifications for managing agents, so I'd encourage anybody who's interested in that to feed into that consultation. Of course, if we do mandate qualifications for managing agents, we'd want to ensure those qualifications deal appropriately with any responsibilities towards building safety. So, this is something that we are consulting on at the moment in a different area.

Okay. From your own view, would you see any benefit from having a management agent at least licensed for category 1 buildings? 

I think that's something where we are keen to see some changes, obviously, in this space. I very much look forward to the consultation responses, and I'm sure the committee would be welcome to put their own contribution into the consultation as well.

Thank you for that. I've got a couple of questions, Chair, on fire risk assessments, if I may. 

Yes, please.

The Hackitt review recommended annual fire safety risk assessments. This has been scaled back in the Bill to an annual review of the previous risk assessment, with the full risk assessment only being required if specific changes have happened. Why have you chosen that approach?

Thanks, Peter. As I say, we are aiming to be proportionate here and to ensure that risks are assessed as often as appropriate, but to avoid creating that undue burden and cost for principal accountable persons and residents. So, conducting a full fire risk assessment where there hasn't been any material change in fire risk, and no reason to believe such a change may have occurred, we don't think that would be a good use of money and scarce resource. So, ultimately, the cost could be borne by leaseholders and tenants. But we are leading the way here in Wales, and there's no requirement in any other part of the UK for fire risk assessments to be conducted or reviewed with any particular frequency at all. But, Steve, I don't know if you want to add with your experience. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. All I would say is that we've tried to put in the Bill, I think it's section 30 for regulated buildings and section 72 for HMOs, a set of circumstances where, broadly defined, it is reasonable to believe that the risk of fire may have changed. So, for instance, if you do works to the building that require building regs approval or planning consent, it's very likely you've done something to the risk of fire. If you adapt part of the building so that a disabled person can occupy it, you've almost certainly done something, not by making the adaptation, but by saying, 'This is now a disabled person's home.' You've almost certainly changed the risk profile, and so on. And when any of those things happen, what the Bill says is, 'You must then do a full fire risk assessment again.' If none of those things happen, and you've got no other reason to believe that the risk of fire has changed, well, a simple review, we think, is probably sufficient. If that review then throws up, 'Actually, no, we forgot about that', then you've got to do another fire risk assessment. So, really, as the Cabinet Secretary says, it's trying to get the balance right between recognising when fire risk may reasonably have changed and doing a fresh assessment, and avoiding doing that when there's no reason to believe that and creating costs that residents would, ultimately, have to bear. That would be it, I would say.

Perfect. Thank you for that. Finally then, how does the Welsh Government intend to ensure that the capacity and expertise is in place for the workforce to carry out the fire risk assessments in a timely manner?

Again, as fire risk assessments are being required under the fire safety Order, as Steve mentioned earlier, it improves the process, we're hoping it simplifies the process, and it doesn't create a wholly new requirement. We do believe that the workforce is there to meet this element of the new regime already because of those requirements. But, as the Grenfell Tower inquiry recognised, the fire risk assessors must be competent to do the job, and the Bill provides that. So, we are working with UK Government and other devolved Governments and with the fire safety sector to draw up an agreed structure and set of standards for fire risk assessor qualifications and certification, and, again, this will simplify the process of improving and demonstrating competence. So, once complete and agreed, we will make regulations that mandate compliance with those standards.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Chair. 

Okay, thank you, Peter. Lee Waters. 

Thanks. I want to ask about regulation and enforcement and the decision to go in a different direction from England in not having a single building safety regulator for the whole country, and instead giving it to local authorities to do. I'm curious why a regional approach hasn't been designed in from the beginning here.

I think, importantly, local authorities will have these—. They are building safety regulators already and they have those responsibilities. It is in discussion with local authorities. I really don't want to see 22 local authorities and 22 different ways of doing it, and I've been clear from the start about that. But there are ways that we're working with local authorities at the moment in terms of how they help us to design those solutions. But, for example, I'm not—. Corporate joint committees, that is something that I'm interested in, would be interested in seeing, so I haven't ruled that out in the development. So, it's not 22 local authorities that I want to see having responsibility solely. I've been clear about that. But I think working with local authorities at the moment to decide what that will look like will be an important way forward.

If you don't want to see 22 local authorities doing it, why haven't you said so in the Bill? 

Well, we're looking at how we can take that forward with local authorities and that discussion is ongoing at the moment. So that is—

Their track record, Minister, forgive me, is not great on collaborating when you just give them a free choice, is it? Why are you repeating the same mistake again? 

Well, as I said, I'm not—. We've got Local Partnerships that are engaged at the moment. They're doing some work for us, with us, and they're speaking with local authorities and they're helping to determine that model of regulation. As I say, I'm not—. I'm open very much to CJCs as an option, and that's—

They are Government policies; you should be open to them.

I am very open to them.

Why aren't you requiring them?

Because we've got Local Partnerships, who are doing that work at the moment, and we will see how that work goes, but I very much believe it will make sense for them to work jointly in collaboration on this, and we're working with them on that.

But if they decide not, there's nothing you can do about it, is what you're saying. 

Well, we'll see how that discussion goes with Local Partnerships. I haven't met Local Partnerships yet, but I will be making sure that it's not on a 22 basis.

But, if that fails, is there provision in the Bill for you to be able to say that this should be done on a regional basis? 

Not currently.

Why not?

Well, we're waiting for Local Partnerships and working with local authorities at the moment, and that's been something that we have, in the formulation of the Bill, been—

Will that be complete before the passage of the Bill?

Yes, we're due to hear from Local Partnerships in the autumn on their recommendations.

So, you could amend—. Just assume, for the sake of scrutiny, that this process doesn't produce the outcome you desire, you could yet amend the Bill to allow regional arrangements to be required.

Yes. Tania.

All of the feedback that we are getting from local government suggests that they don't want 22 either, just in terms of it being proportional and in terms of their resource pressures. So, Ceredigion, for example, having its own building safety authority and kind of standing up that internal function would not make a lot of sense, whereas, obviously, for Cardiff and Swansea, then, much more of a priority, and significant input required from them. So, that's the kind of work that we've asked Local Partnerships—

That's not answering my question, with respect.

Sorry, can you repeat your question. 

So, if you are unable to reach a way forward you're satisfied with whilst this Bill is still going through the Senedd is there time to amend it to require collaboration? 

There will be that opportunity.

There will be. Okay. Can you give us—? Are you setting a deadline for when there needs to be a decision made on that, when it's going to be too late to amend the Bill?

So, the amending stage is in December—off the top of my head, apologies; we can write if you want a very specific answer—and we're due to hear from Local Partnerships earlier, in the autumn. So, they are in the discovery phase of their work. They are engaging with local government and other key partners, and we'll be hearing more about what their findings are showing early in the autumn. 

Because the Audit Wales report two years ago was very clear that local authorities and fire authorities don't have the resources to discharge their current responsibilities—and capacity—let alone new responsibilities. There's nothing in the Bill I've been able to see that sets out how fire authorities and local authorities need to collaborate to discharge these duties. Is that a further gap that you're looking to remedy?

We've got two implementation work streams on cost implications and workforce capacity for local authorities. And it's obviously important that we work with local authorities to see how we can implement the new regime and overcome that resource and cost pressure. So, we've got a task and finish group looking at capacity issues and reporting. That will report towards the end of this year as well.

Are the fire authorities part of that?

Steve.

They're not quite in the same position, because they already have substantially the same functions as we're giving them in the Bill. What the Bill does is it asks local authorities to become building safety authorities, to run the registration and so forth. What it asks fire authorities to do is substantially a retread of what they already do. So, they're not in the same position at all.

But what they substantially already do is not able to be discharged according to Audit Wales.

I think, from memory, the Audit Wales report was about local authority building control. It wasn't about the fire and rescue service.

It says in the briefing note I have that local authorities and fire and rescue services were, quote,

'unable to effectively discharge their responsibilities and ensure buildings in Wales are safe.'

That may well be what your report says. My recollection of that—

That's what the Audit Wales report says.

That piece of work done by Audit Wales—and maybe we can check this—was about local authority building control. The fire service has no building control function.

Sure. The broader point, though, is that the collaboration required between fire authorities and local authorities is already deficient. You're producing more complexity into the space, but you don't seem to be addressing the need to bottom out joint working relationships between local authorities and fire authorities. Mr Pomeroy.

That's not really—. It's probably more of a question for—

Well, it's a technical question. Have you bottomed that out?

It isn't a question for me, genuinely.

We can write to the—

Who is that question for, then? 

We can write to the committee about that.

Well, forgive me, this is a fairly major part of the Bill. Why is it not something you've considered?

Just to say that the fire and rescue services are a part of our implementation planning, so they will be engaged in those conversations that we're having with key partners around—

But this is a strategic planning gap here, forgive me, it seems to me, that I'm asking you about. Only, from what I've seen from the Audit Wales report, the landscape is already struggling. So, existing deficiencies are not being addressed, and you're adding more complexity, and for some reason the officials involved haven't thought about it.

We did commission our own research on the back of the Audit Wales report as well in terms of capacity within the system. And that report—. The evidence that we commissioned ourselves is forming the basis of those ongoing engagement and discussions with local government and with the fire and rescue service. 

But the Bill, as it currently stands, does not make a provision for how they should work together—local authorities and fire and rescue services.

No, it doesn't prescribe the model.

Okay. Do you think it should?

Well, we haven't put that in the Bill, but we know that you're going through the scrutiny process now, and obviously we will take account of the recommendations as well that you bring forward.

Well, it has been eight years in the making, so I'm surprised this hasn't been thought of.

Well, I think the discussions, and bringing forward Local Partnerships to engage and to see that way of how we can work together—. But, as I say, I'm very open to the regional option of working. I think it was not felt that we'd have one building safety regulator, as they have in England; I've explained our rationale for that. But we very much know that we need that collaboration, and I think that's why Local Partnerships have been engaged at this point, and we look forward to their response in—

Okay. Can I just ask a final question? 

Lee, just before you go on, Siân. Siân Gwenllian. 

So, as I say, collaboration and joint working is crucial to the delivery of the Bill, and there's already that strong relationship that does exist. So, we have funded the joint inspection team to work with local authorities and fire and rescue authorities in undertaking additional building inspections, and providing the advice and recommendations. Nonetheless, we do recognise that, as local authorities establish themselves as building safety authorities, they'll need to ensure that co-operation and communication with fire and rescue services must be strong. But local authorities will be responsible for regulation and enforcement. So, that's why I think they should be involved in designing how best to organise themselves to deliver it. So, I do think—

My question was: why haven't you had those conversations with local government way back? Because, you know, this Bill has taken years to surface as it is, so surely those conversations should have been happening a long time ago, so that we get to a point today where the Bill does include the precise structure that will be carrying out the regulatory work.

So, as I said, Local Partnerships will be supporting local authorities in determining that model. The placing of responsibility for enforcing the occupation phase building safety duties onto local authorities will ensure that alignment between new functions and the ones they have currently. I think, in relation to building control, housing, and their considerable experience in engaging with residents, that is why the approach won't weaken the model. But, as I said, this is something that we have been working on and engaging, but I think, working with local authorities—. It's important that they have their part to play in designing the system that they will be responsible for.

I think this just goes to the heart of my concern, that we're extending a regulatory regime when we don't have the capacity to do so. Local Partnerships, who you keep referring to, for those who don't know, are an expensive in-house consultancy who fill in the gaps when there aren't enough civil servants to do the job, or there aren't enough local authority officials to do the job, so we get Local Partnerships in. Fine. The fact that we need them shows there is a gap of capacity in the system. You're using them to assess what further gaps in capacity there is in the system, but without any remedies to fill those gaps. So, I think there's a fundamental issue here. We're placing onto a system that's already overstretched another lot of regulations that haven't been fully thought through, that may not work in practice. So, that's a concern I have. That's a comment rather than a question.

Just a final question, if I could, on conflicts of interest. So, when a local authority is a social landlord, so owns a category 3 building—so that's flats above seven storeys—the Bill makes provision that they shouldn't mark their own homework, that they have to have another local authority to be the regulator for that—very sensible. But you don't do the same for categories 2 and 3, so below seven storeys. Why is that? If there is a fundamental conflict of interest of ownership and regulation for flats above seven storeys, why does that not exist for flats below seven storeys?

Okay. So, using powers under section 102 of the Bill, Welsh Ministers could direct a building safety authority to arrange for the delegation of its functions to another authority. This could provide some protection for a situation where there is a conflict of interest within a category 2 building, where things are not working as they should be. But, in category 2 buildings, we do think it's unlikely that a local authority will not register its own building. Even if, for some reason, it doesn't, residents of those buildings will likely already know that it's the local authority who is responsible for their building. 

So, in category 2, there's still the matter of the duty to assess and manage the structural safety issues, or the way in which authorities handle complaints by their own residents. We do accept that there could be a conflict of interest, but residents of local authority-owned buildings have different routes to redress compared to those in the private sector. So, they can complain to their councillor, for example, the public services ombudsman, for example.

But we're talking about regulation here. This is legal regulation. Surely we shouldn't be letting this down to, 'Well, we think it will be okay, because they all know each other.' If we're setting out a statutory basis for regulation, this inconsistency on a slightly informal, 'let's hope it all goes well' basis seems a bit lax to me.

Well, again, under that section 102 of the Bill—I believe it's 102 of the Bill—Welsh Ministers could direct the building safety authority to arrange for the delegation of its functions to another authority.

Yes, but why leave it to doing it by exception? Why not put that in as a default assumption, as you are doing for category 1 buildings? What's the difference in principle here that's requiring a different approach?

I think the difference in principle is around that proportionate effect, isn't it, and the proportionality of the building. So, we know that category 1 is the more complex buildings, whereas category 2 and category 3 are going to be less complex. So, that's why the category 1 is more proportionate.

But the principle of a conflict of interest is not about complexity, is it?

No, it's not.

It's about a conflict.

And that's where we do provide that, under section 102 of the Bill, where we can direct the building safety authority to arrange that delegation.

Well, perhaps we may want to say something in our report about the need for consistency here, and maybe this is something Government can give further thought to. Thank you.

Okay. We will move on, then, to residents and some of the duties and responsibilities that they have. Firstly then, how will you ensure that residents have enough information to understand their responsibilities and know how to raise concerns? 

Okay. So, again, the Bill establishes robust mechanisms for residents' involvement and stronger systems of redress when things go wrong. Again, I mentioned that I visited St Tydfils Court in Merthyr Tydfil recently, and it was really good to hear how residents both felt and knew that they were involved in the building that they live in. They very much know that residents also must have a part to play in the building that they live in, that it remains safe. So, the Bill does establish an appropriate responsibility for residents, which we do intend to support with guidance to help them contribute to a safer living environment.

So, the duties the Bill places on residents reflect what most residents are already doing. However, these duties are in place for when residents behave in a way that puts the lives of others at risk. So, officials are exploring the development of a residents' handbook to support residents in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the new regime, and obviously this will help residents understand what their duties mean in practice. So, the idea is that the handbook will include clear, relatable examples of what could constitute behaviour that creates a building safety risk, such as blocking fire exits, tampering with safety equipment or overloading balconies, and explain how residents can meet their responsibilities.

Yes. I think it's useful, Cabinet Secretary, to give examples, isn't it? I mean, sections 51 and 52 prohibit residents from doing anything that creates a significant risk of a safety risk materialising. So, it's risk of a risk, isn't it, which might not be entirely clear, I think, to residents, and it might be quite difficult to understand. Has that been tested with residents at all? 

So, I very much recognise that what you've described can sound complex. The intention behind the wording is to ensure the legislation captures behaviours that could lead to serious safety risks, but, through engagements that we've had with residents, we've tested that with residents, with the practical examples and scenarios that reflect the type of behaviour that legislation is intended to address, and these examples were generally well understood by residents, and will form the basis of the guidance and those explanatory materials that we intend to produce. 

Okay. Just in terms of support for residents, obviously there will be residents with unmet support needs, which may cause them to act in a way that does create risk or could create risk. One example we think of is hoarding, for example. The Bill has punitive approaches, which I guess are necessary, but what consideration was given to including a requirement in the Bill for authorities to identify and address any support needs to help residents comply?

Thank you. And again, officials worked really closely to ensure that the regime is inclusive and responsive to those most at risk. And the Bill does not seek to regulate every day private behaviour, and behaviour that creates a fire risk within a residential unit, like hoarding, does not imperil residents in other units if the compartmentation in a building is sound, or if there is a reliable means of evacuating the premises. So, the provisions in the Bill are aimed at actions that threaten the safety of the whole building, like tampering with fire doors or blocking escape routes.

So, the Bill does include a range of safeguards for vulnerable residents, including placing duties on accountable persons to engage with residents. This could, for example, provide accessible building safety information, and consider individual needs such as language, impairments and digital exclusion. We recognise that, in some cases, as you mentioned, hoarding may stem from some unmet support needs, and that those behaviours do have that potential. But the Bill, as I say, does not place a direct duty on enforcing authorities to address such situations, and it does allow for that proportionate, supportive response.

So, it's not something—. In terms of a requirement to identify and address support needs, it's not something that would be addressed in subordinate legislation or some other follow-up that comes from the legislation.

No. Having local authorities act as a regulator does place us in that strong position to protect vulnerable residents, because local authorities do have the expertise in signposting vulnerable residents to appropriate support services to ensure that their support needs are met.

We know that it can be very patchy from one local authority to another in Wales, Cabinet Secretary. Is that sufficiently guarded against?

I think, in terms of the work that local authorities do, they will have that responsibility, in whatever way they do. And I think, in terms of making sure that they are supporting vulnerable residents, as I say, they have the expertise in signposting people to other services as well. And I think that they are best placed to do that. 

Okay. The White Paper proposed new rights to people who need support to self-evacuate, but that isn’t being taken forward; it’s not proposed to take that forward in the Bill. Could you tell committee why that’s the case?

So, the Bill does require accountable persons to take all reasonable steps to ensure residents can escape from premises quickly and safely. That includes disabled residents. So, if necessary, we can augment that in regulation or guidance, setting out what those 'reasonable steps' should be. But it’s also one of the main reasons why adaptation of any part of the building to make it suitable for occupation by disabled people will trigger a requirement for a fresh fire risk assessment. We’re also exploring the possibility of using data about vulnerable people, which is already securely held, to inform the response to an emergency, and, where necessary, the rescue of people. So, this might well not need legislation at all.

Is there any specific reason why you moved away from the White Paper?

In terms of this, I think it’s just been looking at that proportional point of it. And, as I said, we are looking to see how we can use data to make sure that we are meeting those needs as well.

Okay. Finally, from me at least, Cabinet Secretary, how do you intend to ensure that duty holders, with regard to category 1 buildings, have the skills to manage resident engagement effectively, and that all residents' voices are heard? And, again, thinking of that absolutely awful tragedy at Grenfell, this is quite central, really. 

Absolutely. It is absolutely central to it. And it is important that—and the Bill does—the Bill does empower residents with that clear route to redress, and that stronger voice in matters that affect their homes. And there are some really excellent examples of where that is happening. I feel like it's only because I've been there recently, but St Tydfils Court with Merthyr Valley Homes was a really good example of where those changes had been made by the housing association. When I was speaking to residents, they very much felt like their voice was heard and there were those avenues for redress as well—and not just heard, but that their voices were listened to. I think that's a really important part as well, because, again, that was something that did not happen during Grenfell.

But statutory guidance will promote the best examples from across the sector to support principal accountable persons to engage with residents in a practical and accessible way, and that was again one thing that came across from residents—there was the need for that to be accessible for them, and to make sure that they had notices or information that was done in an accessible way. So, the guidance will emphasise the importance of tailoring resident engagement to resident needs and a having proactive approach that utilises a range of engagement methods, to make sure that residents' voices are heard.

Again, just to say that, if residents feel that the resident engagement strategy isn't working for them, they will have the right to raise the issue as a complaint to the building safety authority, and that building safety authority will have significant powers of enforcement to deal with principal accountable persons who do not comply with the responsibilities.

In terms of the committee having some comfort that that resident engagement in terms of those category 1 buildings really will be effective, is it then the statutory guidance that you would say is the main vehicle for achieving that?

Yes.

And will it be a legal requirement for authorities?

The guidance will be statutory, so it will have statutory effect.

Okay. If there are no other questions from committee members, thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you very much to your officials for coming in to give evidence this morning.

Thank you.

You will be sent a transcript in the usual way to check for factual accuracy.

Thank you, and I hope all Members have a good summer break and come back to this—. I'm sure your engagement on this Bill will continue over the summer, but thank you.

We look forward to resuming scrutiny in the autumn, Cabinet Secretary.

Absolutely. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay. Our next item today, then, is papers to note. Paper 2 is a letter from the Cabinet Secretary with regard to building safety data. Paper 3 is a letter from Care & Repair Cymru with additional information in relation to the local authorities in supporting hospital discharges. Is committee content to note the papers? You are.

Item 4 is a motion to understand in order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. Is committee content to do so? I see that you are. We will move to private session.