National Assembly for Wales

Bore da, croeso. Good morning and welcome to today's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd, Welsh Parliament. We've had one apology from Members, from Rhianon Passmore, otherwise Members are in attendance. Do Members have any declarations of registrable interests they wish to disclose? No. Thank you, Members.

We have one paper to note, which is the follow-up to our report on Digital Health and Care Wales. Digital Health and Care Wales provided their response to us and to the Health and Social Care Committee joint report from 16 August. This contained 16 recommendations, all of which were responded to. Three required a further update by the end of 2023, and these have now been provided to the committee in the correspondence. This refers to several actions implemented in response to the recommendations, with a further update on progress due to be provided in six months' time. Do Members have any comments on this correspondence? Adam Price.

Thank you. Any comments from other Members? I note that our recommendation 9, which asked them by the end of last year to publish a clear, realistic and prioritised plan for increasing its engagement with the social care sector—including public, further and private sector providers, regional partnership boards, and the social partnership council—generated a response focused on e-library resources, but not, in my view, the wider ask that we had put to them. So, are Members content for us to write back to them capturing both those points?

Yes. I agree with Adam and I agree with you, Chair. I think we should ask for a more elaborate response from what we’ve received so far, and clarification, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Well, that was the only item to note before the main item for today, which is an evidence session for our inquiry into building safety with local authority building control. This follows an Audit Wales, Auditor General for Wales report. I note from its overall conclusions and findings that it refers to

‘The absence of robust plans, clear decision making, and adequate resources’,

stating this

‘raises real fears that the new legislation will not be delivered and the problems it is seeking to address will remain.’

Also amongst other matters, which we will cover in our questions, it refers to

‘the absence of a national framework for monitoring and evaluating building control and building safety’,

stating this

‘means that councils and their partners are not working to agreed appropriate outcome measures, targets, or benchmarks. Coupled with limited scrutiny and evaluation of building control and building safety, and poor management of risk, we conclude that assurance systems are inadequate.’

So, that’s the hinterland to the evidence we will now be seeking. Of course, the auditor general regularly highlights to us in many different contexts his concerns about gaps in monitoring and evaluation, and the term is being used once again.

So, before I start, we obviously have witnesses with us and that referred to the auditor general’s report, published last August, on the implementation of the requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022. We considered the auditor general’s report at our meeting on 14 September 2023, and agreed to take further evidence, and this is our first session as part of that inquiry. So, I thank our witnesses for attending committee, and I’d be grateful if you could each state your names and roles for the record.

Thank you for inviting me. My name is Peter Keates and I’m executive director at Local Authority Building Control. I’ve been at LABC two years. Prior to that, I had 35 years experience in local government. My background is building control, but there are other services I looked after, mainly in Bedfordshire.

Thank you for being with us. Are you the only representative today? 

There's Peter Richards.

Sorry, over to you then, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I’m Pete Richards. I’m the building control manager in Swansea City Council. I’m also the chair of LABC Cymru. I’ve been in local authority for 40 years this year, and 37 of those years in building control, 23 as the manager in Swansea.

Okay. Well, thank you, both, for being with us. As I say, croeso—welcome. As protocol has it, as Chair, I'll begin the questions and then colleagues will take up the questions subsequently. So, in your view, to what extent is the Welsh Government's timetable for developing supporting guidance and legislation realistic and achievable for the system to be fully in force in April 2025? And if you don't believe it is realistic, why not?

Do you want me to go first?

Yes, please.

It's challenging. I have to say it's a very challenging timetable. I wouldn't say it's not realistic. We can support the work of Welsh Government. We have a good relationship with Welsh Government, and we'll perhaps come on to talk about some of the areas where we feel that we can support that timetable. Challenging, but not unrealistic, I don't think.

Thank you. Would Peter Richards like to add to that?

There's not a lot I can add—not anything any different, really. As Pete says, it is challenging, but it's work in progress. We have a close working relationship with Members and officials at Welsh Government, and we'll strive and do what we can to achieve those deadlines, but it will be a challenge. There's no doubt about that. 

Okay. Well, moving on, what is your response to concerns about the resources and experience of council teams themselves? 

Shall I go first on that?

Yes, Pete, please.

Yes. Firstly, I'd like to say that the thread of the report, the theme—we can't disagree with the findings and outcomes. And I have to say that this is something that we asked for; we asked for this audit, and had been asking for it for many years, recognising the fact of our age profile within the profession, not just in Wales, but nationally. And the issues that have been identified in the report, we need help and assistance to drive that and improve things, going forward. So, I can't really dispute the findings in the report. They have existed for a long, long time. I think if we'd undertaken this audit 10 years ago, the findings would have been the same. So, it's a starting point, I think, to put all these issues right for the new regime, going forward.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Perhaps I can just add to that some data on resources, because I know there are concerns about resources. There has been a report mentioned in the audit report about a 40 per cent vacancy rate. We've got some data that we can share with you, if you would like it, in terms of Wales and the 22 Welsh authorities. There is a vacancy rate at the time this data was taken, in August, of 16 per cent, but that's 16 per cent of 106 in-post surveyors and 20 out of post. So, it's high, but not as high as the national average of 40 per cent.  

And I think Peter Richards referred to there being not a lot of difference from 10 years ago. Is that fairly consistent throughout that period, or is that a—

Yes, I think it would be. Yes, I think it's fairly consistent. And, 10 years ago, we were probably in our best position and it has dropped since then. But, fairly consistent, yes.

And is that partly because—and I'm ignorant of this—not enough young people studying and qualifying are coming through the system to apply for these positions? 

It is, yes. I think that was driven by austerity and savings targets for local authorities. So, the trainees in local authorities dropped off. We didn't bring enough young people in. It's a career that, in the public sector, a lot of people have enjoyed over time. It's not just about processing building control applications, there are a lot of aspects—dangerous structures, demolitions, dealing with safety at sports grounds. So, there are a lot of other aspects in terms of public safety that attract and retain people in the public sector. So, I think the profile of staff—. There are a lot of staff in the public sector—. Peter mentioned 30 years and 23 years as a manager; I was 35 years in the public sector, and about 25 as a manager and then a head of service. So, although it's an ageing profession, there are a lot of people who have been in public sector building control a long time, and then a lack of trainees coming in due to funding.

You all said—. The question was more related to the vacancies that are advertised, presumably, rather than the vacancies that haven't been advertised because lack of funding. So, is the volume of applications also less than we need to see?

It probably varies from local—. Peter wants to come in, but I'll just finish. It probably varies from local authority to local authority, to be honest, in terms of the volume of applications. Private sector competition as well has taken people out of local government and into private sector because pay and terms and conditions have become more attractive in the private sector, and I think that's mentioned in the report, but I see Peter had his hand up.

Yes, absolutely. I was going to mention the competition aspect, which isn't doing local authorities any favours at all, picking off our best and our most experienced staff, paying those better salaries and incentives. In terms of the vacancies, Chair, having first-hand experience in Swansea, over the last two, maybe three years, we've had two vacancies—senior officer vacancies—where we've gone out to recruitment four times and we haven't attracted an applicant. We've also gone out with a market supplement and, again, there's been no response. So, it's a dire situation, I think. All authorities are experiencing similar things across the 22. There is that lack of experienced, qualified individuals. There are examples in authorities where we are trying to introduce new blood, if you like, into the profession, but, of course, they need to be mentored and trained, and, without the experienced officers to do that, it's a difficult process. So, yes, we're up against it.

Thank you.

Can I share a positive on that? We have—. It's mentioned in the report. We had £16.5 million of funding from Government in England to recruit 120 trainees approximately. We've recruited those. They work for Local Authority Building Control and then they achieve their experiential learning in local authorities across England. More recently, working with Welsh Government, we've placed our first eight trainees in Wales—four funded by LABC and four funded by Welsh Government; so, a Government grant of £350,000—and that's proving a really successful scheme. Those first trainees are just at the end; they've just completed their first 12 months with us. Some have actually moved across to the local authorities into permanent roles and I'm sure others will follow. And the idea of the scheme is that, at the end of their contracts with us, they'll go into vacant roles in local authorities; so, it's a real positive to support the problems that local authorities in Wales are facing.

Thank you. I know Members will pick up on this theme later. So, moving on, how effectively do you believe the Welsh Government has involved councils and other stakeholders and shared information with them to provide clarity on the timetable and detail of changes?

[Inaudible.]

Again—. Sorry, Peter, go on.

No, go on, Pete.

Yes, I know that that communication has been ongoing and continues. They've been notifying chief executives and the people at the top end of authorities from the start, so, you know, they're well informed in that respect. I have to say—probably not in all authorities, but perhaps in the majority of authorities—there tends to be that lack of appreciation of the importance of what's coming our way. And very much in the main, the communication would be referred back directly to the manager or the person, the lead of the authority, to take the lead on delivering the new regime. So, although they are well informed, maybe there's some not ignorance, perhaps reluctance maybe, to appreciate or realise the importance of the new building safety regime.

Okay. Thank you. Did you wish to—?

I was just going to—. Yes, I echo what Peter has said. We have a really good working relationship with Welsh Government officials. We are working closely with them on a number of initiatives, some of which we may come onto when we go into the detail. It's challenging in terms of resources and a challenging timetable, and I know in the report it points out their issues with resources in the same way that local authorities have issues with resources.

You both described the process, the engagement you do have, but how effective is that?

Yes, I think it's effective. We're working with them at the minute on a number of initiatives around—. We're looking at putting together a summit to engage Welsh local authority leaders to, if you like, push forward the importance of the building safety agenda and to pick up on some of those things that are in the report around the financial aspects, the trainees and how we feel we can work together in terms of the regionalisation and collaboration agenda.

Okay, thank you. Yes, please.

I'd just like to add, we've always had a very good working relationship with officials at Welsh Government. I know there have been some changes most recently, but that good relationship continues—I have to stress that.

[Inaudible.] Is it good and effective? Communication is good, but is it effective?

Yes, I believe so. It is effective, but again, as Pete says, they are in difficulty, the same as us, in terms of staff and recruiting staff; I know things have improved recently. But, yes, it is effective and a working relationship.

Okay, then. Thank you. To what extent, if at all, do you believe that councils have sufficient detail to support their teams to deliver their new responsibilities, and are there any particular areas of concern currently, and, if so, what?

I think, probably, the pace of the building safety requirements and their lack of detail at the minute in terms of how it's going to move forward for implementation in 2025. It probably needs to accelerate quite quickly.

Thank you. Yes, Peter Richards.

Yes, just to add to that. There is definitely some unease, if you like, around the next stage. We're obviously aware of what we need to do in terms of registration and competency by the end of March. But it's the phase 2 implementation that is not clear, and hasn't been communicated. I know it's forthcoming, but it's the unease around that, I think, that's causing issues for authorities at the minute.

Thank you. What support has Local Authority Building Control, LABC, been giving to councils to plan for the new regime, both generally and in the context of the auditor general's recommendations that councils should develop local action plans?

So, if I can go through a few areas, can I—? I'm not sure if everybody in the room will have a full understanding of LABC as an organisation, so if I could perhaps start just by explaining LABC as an organisation. We're a not-for-profit membership organisation. Our members are every local authority in England and Wales, and we operate across 12 regions, one of which is LABC Cymru, and that's chaired by Peter. The board is made up of 14 board members, 11 of which are local authority managers in England and Wales, and three of the exec team: myself; the chief exec, Lorna Stimpson; and another executive director, Martin Taylor. The board will always have one LABC Cymru representative on it. At the minute, it is Dave Sharp from Wrexham. And LABC also has a community interest company, the Building Safety Competence Foundation, and that was set up to support local authorities in terms of competence and validation and the challenges that individual building inspectors face to prove their competence and get validated to be able to register as a building inspector. So, we've done a lot of work in that area to support local authorities. We also have done a lot of work in terms of education. We have levels 3 to 6 accredited learning through the Chartered Institute of Building and with the University of Wolverhampton, and we have—I'm just referring to my notes—put learning into local authorities, a £500,000 investment, and we were quite disappointed that we weren't consulted on the report prior to its production, because that's not reflected in the report, but that's about upskilling building control surveyors in Welsh local authorities, and that's been running for the last four years. We offer, as I said, accredited learning levels 3 to 6, and then up to degree level with Wolverhampton university. For Welsh students, we've got a large cost reduction as there's no levy in Wales, and we're currently finalising a scheme for all of our members in terms of continuing professional development, aligned to competence validation, so that there will be an annual programme of CPD for our members to help them retain their competence and validation once they've achieved it. I don't think there's anything to add.

On the partner authority scheme, we work with our local authority partners. So, as a partner authority scheme, it is mentioned in the report where local authorities can choose, or architects can choose a local authority in which to undertake, if you like, the planned side, or the paperwork side, of the application, and then the authority, where the work is, undertake that site inspection. So, that's provided to our local authority partners as well. I don't know if you've got anything to add, Peter.

Well, the question I was asking was, within the remits—and I'm pleased to hear about continuous professional development, which all effective professions seek to incorporate—specifically to the new regime, what support have you been giving councils, and particularly in relation, as I said, to the auditor general's recommendation that councils should develop local action plans? Peter Richards has his hand up, so perhaps he'd want to come in first on that.

Yes, absolutely. I echo what Peter just said there. The support they provide to LABC Cymru as a region is invaluable, and I'm eternally grateful for that. But, in terms of the recommendations for local authorities, every item, I suppose, or every recommendation, is work in progress, and we're working closely, or LABC are working closely with LABC Cymru, providing that support to develop those action plans, offering training on the financial management, offering training and support in terms of the risk management. So, on every recommendation, we are having support in that specific area from LABC.

Peter Keates.

So, in terms of the four recommendations that are in the report for local authorities, we've written to all chief execs and leaders explaining the building safety agenda. We're proposing a summit in April for chief execs and senior leaders to set out the plan for moving forward and supporting our members. In terms of recommendation 6, we already provide training to heads of building control and managers. We're looking to deliver an update in terms of financial training and the financial aspects that are mentioned in the report. We're also looking to ensure that that financial training is available for finance people rather than just building control people. We are working with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, so we've contacted CIPFA to see if there's any need to review their guidance in terms of the changes for building safety, but also in terms of the understanding of the guidance.

In terms of recommendation 7, we already offer a range of service reviews for local authorities. We're also preparing guidance for local authorities and working with the Welsh Government in terms of regionalisation and collaboration to look to see how we take that aspect forward in terms of the review, and how that works with building safety.

In terms of the work to date—and it is mainly in England—my colleagues have worked very closely with the building safety regulator. They've both been members of the joint regulators group, working with the building safety regulator and the National Fire Chiefs Council in terms of the timeline and the implementation in England, and we've made the offer to the Welsh Government that we would be able to support a similar approach in taking the agenda forward in terms of building safety.

And finally from me on this section, how confident are you that each council in Wales will have local action plans with in-built monitoring and evaluation in place? Yes, Peter Richards.

That's a difficult question to answer, to be truthful. I'd like to think that all the 22 will not just satisfy that recommendation but will satisfy each and every recommendation, but it's an unknown at the minute. Most authorities should already have action plans, business plans, or whatever—they're branded in different ways. They should already have them in place. It'll just be an extension of that, to cover the new requirements. So, I would like to think that it'll be in place in good time.

Okay, thank you. Could I bring in Natasha Asghar?

Thank you so much, Chair. Good morning, gentlemen. So, I'm going to be focusing a little bit on workplace—workforce—planning. I apologise; I can't speak this morning. Mr Keates, you mentioned earlier, in your response to one of the Chair's questions about £500,000 funding that was being spent on, I believe, apprenticeships and traineeships. Can you elaborate on that, please, on that figure?

Yes. So, we have an education and learning programme and it's accredited learning through the CIOB. We got £3.5 million of funding in England for English surveyors, and the LABC board took a decision to fund the requirements for Welsh building control surveyors. So, I think it was either the Christmas before last or the Christmas before when we set up a programme for all building control surveyors across England and Wales to register where they were in terms of their learning and education and to identify what was needed for them, and they were all given an education programme that has upskilled them to support them in terms of not only improvements in terms of building control, but in terms of building safety as well.

So, that money was spent on those who are already in the profession, to upskill them, as opposed to new recruits, basically.

Yes.

Okay, fine. So, I'd like to know, then, how the LABC has actually supported councils with succession plans, going forward, and that includes a realistic and supported number of traineeships, because we all know that it's a very difficult position, or difficult for sector to recruit for at the moment, as you mentioned initially in your earlier answers. So, what have you been doing specifically?

It is so. Again, kicked off by the English Government, with the £16.5 million grant that was mentioned in the report, LABC then took a decision to put some funding in themselves for a trainee in every one of our regions, but to put four in Wales because Wales hadn't had any funding at that point. On advertising those roles and engagement with the Welsh Government, the Welsh Government have put in funding—£350,000 for four trainees as well. As I say, that programme was started at the beginning of last year, so they've just completed their—well, actually, in August, so it was the year before—first year of education and are just moving on to their second level 5 education.

What we would really like to do is to continue to work with the Welsh Government for a pipeline of trainees, maybe with an initial view for the funding to be provided for one in every local authority. At the minute, eight local authorities in Wales have taken a trainee. They are in all different local authorities. And we are back out to advert—we'll start the process in February, so in April we'll be doing some more assessment centres for probably between 30 and 40 additional trainees. That's with funding from England that was part of the original funding. We would like to be in a position for further funding from Wales to recruit further trainees, as part of that process.

Okay. So, the population of Wales is 3 million. [Interruption.] Three—yes, I did say three—3 million. Yes. Okay, the population of Wales is 3 million. That's quite a significant number, and, on top of that, we do have a lot of people who obviously desire to extend their houses. Housing is constantly mentioned here in the Chamber, in debates and in various other ways as well, that we want to see the building of flats, houses, et cetera, regeneration, but do you think eight trainee roles that the Welsh Government is supporting is sufficient to meet the current needs that we have here in Wales?

No. It's the start, I think. We certainly need to see many more in the system. To be honest, I don't think that 120 trainees in England are enough to support the agenda there either.

So, what do you think is the magic number for Wales? 

I wouldn't like to offer one, to be honest. I think any programme needs to be a continuous programme, to be honest. It's an ageing profession with people leaving at the other end, so I think it needs a constant programme to see where we get to over, maybe, the next 18 months to two years to see where we get to in terms of the profession, and whether the introduction of trainees encourages other people to come into the industry. And the report mentions trainees, young people not being interested in building control. We had 15 roles advertised and we had nearly 1,000 applicants for those 15 roles. So, there is interest in the construction profession. Of our trainees that we've taken on so far, about 30 per cent are female, so there is good diversity as well. So, the programme is working really, really well, and we would love the opportunity to continue and build on that programme. 

Okay. Peter did have his hand up. Yes, Peter, go for it. 

Yes, thank you. Just to add to what Peter just said, eight will never be enough but it's a starting point; it's more than we've had for as long as I can remember. And there are examples across the 22 local authorities of trying to introduce trainees or apprenticeships themselves. That usually comes with a sacrifice higher up in the hierarchy of the building control section, where they'll lose maybe a senior post. There is my own example in Swansea where we sacrificed a senior post to create two apprenticeships, and that was a complete success. Two apprentices have just got through their degrees with honours, but it's never going to be enough. Obviously, there are difficulties with austerity and budget situations in all authorities. There's that inability to invest. There's no free cash, no ready cash available, so it's a struggle. I'd really like to thank LABC and the Welsh Government, really, for what they've done in enabling us to introduce these eight trainees. It's a start. My authority is one that is benefiting, and we need to build on that, there's no doubt about that.

Okay. So, in a word of 'yes' or 'no', do you think the Welsh Government funding at present that you're receiving is enough to mitigate the workforce problems that we're having in Wales as they stand? 

No. 

Okay. All right. You mentioned the diversity angle. You mentioned that you've had thousands of applicants, which is fantastic. What do you feel are the main barriers to increasing traineeships in the sector and making building control a good career choice for many people out there?

I think it just is funding, to be honest, whether that's from the individual local authorities or from the Welsh Government. I think it's funding. The education's there. We've got a great programme of education up to degree level at Wolverhampton. Yes, I think it's funding.

Okay. And what is the LABC's view on measures to ease the transition, such as grandfather rights, as some may call it, to enable those surveyors with significant experience but without, potentially, professional accreditation or qualifications to continue to practice?

I'm not sure it's a view as such, but Dame Judith said there needed to be step change, and I think, from all the work that's been done with the building safety regulator and what they've set out in terms of competence, we've worked hard to support our members in terms of achieving their competence validation. I'm not convinced that grandfather rights would achieve that step change. 

Okay. Yes, Peter, you had your hand up. 

I have a slightly different view to Pete there. It is my personal view. I totally understand and respect what Dame Judith has said in her report, but maybe there's a different way of looking at the grandfather rights, because no doubt they are causing us, and will continue to cause us, a massive problem because our experienced staff are leaving at a rate. I totally understand there are building control practitioners out there who may not have practised, technically, for a number of years, and I'm an example of that—I've been a manager for 23 years and I haven't really practised, technically, for that time. So, maybe I would have to go through the competency hoop. I understand that. But there are a lot of officers out there who've got 40 years’ experience—because that’s where our risk is at the minute: 35, 40 years’ experience. They're practising on a daily basis at that very high level on high-risk properties and buildings, and come 1 April they’re not competent anymore. I think it’s a step too far. I understand the registration, and we can register all our building control officers, but I think the competency aspect is causing us a lot of problems at that higher end with the experienced staff, who are saying, ‘Well, I’ve 40 years’ service, I’ve been practising at this level for as long as that, and now they say I’m not competent. I’m not going to do these competency tests’, and they are leaving. And it’s causing us major, major problems. Again, in Swansea, I’ll give you an example. I’ve got three officers in that sort of category who are telling me, ‘I’m not going to do this competency test’, and they’re going to walk away. That is a major, major problem.

So, Peter, how would you suggest one strikes the perfect balance? Because on the one hand we're not going to negate experience, but on the other hand, qualifications are key, and if we're making new trainees, new people, start and go through all of these rigorous hoops of fire in order to become adequate in the profession, how do you get that perfect scenario?

That's fair enough. The new entrants obviously have to prove their competency through on-site experience and undertaking the relevant qualifications at whatever class they’re going to deliver at. That’s fine. They are the new entrants. But there are people out there who have demonstrated that. They have to be members of whatever—whether it’s RICS, CABE, CIOB or whatever. They have to be members there. They’re doing their 20 hours of continuous professional development in most cases. So, there’s an ongoing competency updating, and they’re practising on a daily basis. But suddenly they’re not competent anymore. So, I don’t know where that balance is. I understand the direction, I understand the need to register. But the grandfather rights are going to damage the profession. It needs to be recognised somehow, I think.

Mr Keates, you had an answer to the question. 

I think we recognise that registration is having a negative impact. Peter has mentioned that. But due to the need in terms of moving forward and what was set out, the consequential impact of what was happening was to be expected. LABC very early set up the Building Safety Competence Foundation, and that delivers competence validation for those responsible for construction, for building control surveyors. The pace of that compared with the information coming out of the building safety regulator in England and what’s still to come out in Wales is different, and is what’s causing some of the issues in terms of grandfather rights. But we’ve got 2,500 people, almost, going through competence validation through the BSCF at the minute. So, there is an understanding that it needs to happen, and that’s public and private that that’s available to. 

Thank you so much. My final question to you, before I hand back to the Chair: how has the LABC supported collaboration and regional working in building control, and what potential barriers does it see in further collaboration and regionalisation to strengthen resilience?

In our network, we've got about 100 local authorities who are collaborating, across 39 different examples. None of those are in Wales at the minute. I know Pete may come on and talk about the discussions that have happened in Wales before to try and achieve collaboration. And with those collaborations, there are different examples—

Can you give us a positive example of one of those collaborations working well, and where it is?

I can think of three really positive examples. Hertfordshire have got eight authorities that have joined together as a shared service. Cambridgeshire have got three. Derbyshire have got six. 

And what are the benefits of the collaborative working?

They have obviously got economies of scale in terms of resources. Yes, they cover a bigger area than the individual local authorities, but they've got bigger teams, so they've got the ability to bring in trainees and to train their own. And they've got a little bit more freedom, I think, from the local authorities in terms of how they can operate and what they can do as an organisation that's a shared service and not part of the local authority.

What we're doing at the minute is we're working with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Local Government Association and we're putting together some information on collaboration and examples of the different models that are available for collaboration, shared services and companies. We're working with the Welsh Government to take those discussions forward to look at how that might work in Wales. As I say, Peter may come on to discussions in the past, but I think one of the challenges is geography—maybe the geography in Wales makes it difficult in terms of the landscape and the way the authorities are positioned.

In terms of higher risk buildings, in England we are leading the work in terms of MDTs. My colleague Martin Taylor is leading that work, and working with the building safety regulator to create collaboration through MDTs to look after new HRBs, which are the responsibility of the building safety regulator—so, working with the BSR, the National Fire Chiefs Council and our LABC members, and looking at where the resources are. I think that model could be the start of some collaboration in Wales, certainly for HRB work. We'll take those discussions forward with the Welsh Government and the WLGA.

Peter, you had your hand up as well.

Thank you. Just to add to what Pete has just said, we're in a slightly different position compared to England in terms of the unitary authorities, as I understand it. We went through that process in 1996. So, there's an element of that to take on board, but it is something that we're already in early discussions on. Some authorities have had discussions with their neighbours, and that sort of example, and that's ongoing. It's definitely something that will need to be done, whether it's regional working or hubs of expertise to take account of where we're lacking in whatever experience. It's probably going to be at the higher end, the high-risk stuff, where there'll need to be that coming together. And LABC, as Pete said, are advising us in that respect. We did try to do it ourselves many years ago, probably about 15 years ago now, where we looked to deliver a type of regional working, a coming together, but unfortunately, we didn't have buy-in at that time from managers in particular. Personally, I think it needs to be driven with the assistance of the Welsh Government, to make sure that it happens. I know that the Minister, Julie James, is keen on doing that, so that might pick up momentum in the near future. It's something that has to be high on the agenda to address the issues of the introduction of the new regime.

And just a final sub-question: to have this collaborative working, what would be, roughly, the cost of it?

Sorry, but I haven't got a clue. 

I couldn't give you a figure. The advice that we've had is that, when authorities need to collaborate, they need to look at the legal aspects of that collaboration , and that's where the cost would come from, I think, in terms of any legal advice. The advice we're given is that every model is different, depending on circumstances in the local authority. 

Okay. Thank you so much, Chair. That's it for me.

Thank you. We are in public session, so I'd be grateful, when you use acronyms, if you could explain what they are, because people may not necessarily know. MDT is multidisciplinary team, for example.

Also, can I ask Members and witnesses to be as succinct as possible? We've only got just over three quarters of an hour left and quite a few questions to get through. On that note, over to Mike Hedges, who is joining us remotely.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Scotland have gone down the direction of the hub approach. Do you think that we should in Wales? We've talked about the hub approach, and Scotland have gone down that route. Have you noticed any problems from the hub approach in Scotland, or can we learn from it?

I think the Scottish system is slightly different in that they don't have competition, albeit there is competition to determine who carries out the building control in Scotland. We've done quite lot of work with LABSS, Local Authority Building Standards Scotland, and we still continue to work with them quite closely. I think it's something that Wales could consider.

Thank you. What is the LABC’s position on the mixed market—

Mike Hedges, I think Peter Richards wished to reply as well.

Sorry, Mike. Not a lot more to add, but there's definitely a lot to be learnt from the Scottish model. I doubt very much whether it will be the way forward, but it would be a dream come true for me personally if that was the way forward.

Thank you, Peter, and can I also thank you for doing your bit to advertise Swansea in your background? [Laughter.]

What is the LABC’s position on the mixed market approach and the auditor general’s recommendation for the Welsh Government to review it? Are there some people in the market who are wholly dependent on one or two contracts with one or two companies?

I can't answer your second question, because I don't know the detail in terms of if there are people in the market who are just looking at individual contracts and maybe one or two contracts. In terms of the mixed market approach, I think a robust building control system would, hopefully, remove any concerns regarding the mixed market approach, but, as is recommended by the Welsh audit report, it's something, again, that it's worth Wales looking at.

And Peter Richards, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'm probably not the best person to answer that question, Mike, because I'm probably the most biased in favour of local authority building control, for obvious reasons. But, yes, we would welcome that recommendation. We all know what Dame Judith said in her report. You shouldn't be able to choose your own inspector for obvious reasons, and I'm not going to bore anybody with those reasons. I think they're plain and obvious. I can't, as Peter can't, answer the second part of your question, but a review of the mixed market approach in building control in Wales is really, really welcomed.

I was a recipient of a complaint because I suggested it should all be done by local authorities. Somebody complained to the Senedd about me. So, I'm with you on this. Why are few enforcement actions referred to councils from the private sector?

Again, that's laid in legislation that they're not legally permitted to take enforcement action, and that again works against the local authority. We are seen as the bad people, the big enforcement, the big stick enforcers, because we end up dealing with all enforcement, basically. That doesn't help us in the commercial market. And there are other reasons. You'll see from the report, and other reports probably, that there's not a lot of enforcement taken, for commercial reasons, in both the public and the private sector. So, again, it's one of the disadvantages. It's a disadvantage for the local authority, because we end up dealing with all the bad issues, then, if you like, and private inspectors haven't got to. So it works against us commercially. Again, I'm repeating myself. Those things need to be looked at and considered.

As you know, I'm several years—probably the best part of two decades—out of being involved in it in any way, but it used to be—I say that a lot—that you'd check it at each stage and make sure the footings were dug deep enough, and then you'd check it at each stage it went through. Do you do that now?

Yes, that's the same. Legally, there's no requirement to do that, but local authorities do it, and, in fairness, without being disrespectful to private inspectors, they do the same, but there's an element in the private industry where it's not done, there are no inspections made. But no doubt there are examples where local authorities don't do it as well, and for different reasons. It's all to do with resources, at the end of the day, and availability of staff. It depends on the risk. There's a lot of risk assessing, depending on what job you're dealing with, depending on if you know the builder or not, and if they’re good or bad. You risk assess every job on its own merits and determine at the start, or before you start, at what stages you need to see it. Years ago, we used to have—you had to have notification. We still do the notification at those various stages, as you say, Mike, and, in most cases, inspections will be made. So, there’s not a lot of change.

Thank you.

Have you concluded, Mike? Thank you very much indeed. In that case, Can I bring in Adam Price?

Yes, I think that’s a fair assessment. To expand a little on that, there are a range of differences across the 22. Some building control managers are involved in the fee setting, the monitoring of those fees, financial statements; in other authorities, it’ll be the financial accountants, and, again, in those examples, there are variances in interpretation, ignorance of the law. Of course, the fee regs, that is the law, and there’s that indifference across the 22 of applying that law. You have the CIPFA guidance, which is guidance at the end of the day, but there are many examples, as the report has concluded, of how that is interpreted and delivered. There are some authorities who are able to ring-fence any surpluses, but not many. The majority, I think, if there are surpluses—. And, in many cases, there aren’t surpluses made, but, where they are, there are lots of examples where they end up in the corporate pot, are not ring-fenced and reinvested into the service. But saying that—again, I think Pete has already mentioned it in a previous question—we are engaged with CIPFA, we have had meetings with CIPFA to discuss the guidance and the law, there’s training offered by LABC. So, that is work in progress to satisfy this recommendation. And again, to repeat what Pete mentioned earlier, we are trying to set up this summit then, if you like, in the next few months, to engage—or re-engage, I suppose—with chief executives, accountants who are responsible, and that will be high on the agenda: the fees, setting fees, financial reporting. That is something that is, again, work in progress to satisfy the recommendation.

Just very quickly, I apologise because my translation didn’t work, but I got the gist of what you were saying. Yes, as Peter mentioned the training, we already offer training for building control managers in terms of the financial regulations and the CIPFA guidance and we are looking to adapt that training for finance people in local authorities. And as part of the proposed summit, we would be looking to tackle that issue as well.

I think it was because it was on the wrong channel. But I’ve changed it now, so it should be okay.

If I can come in there, I believe it's the Welsh Government's responsibility to scrutinise local authorities' performance and financial accounting. In my 37 years' experience of building control, I'm not aware of any audit that's ever taken place under the old regime or the new regime since 2010. The benefits to the authority of accounting properly would be to address—. If you have a surplus and you were able to ring-fence—like I said, some are—that surplus for reinvestment into the service, then maybe we would be able to recruit and appoint more trainees, have better computer systems, anything to enhance the service. So, there's the benefit. 

Again, it's probably my ignorance, because it's never happened, I'm not aware, but I would imagine there would be some financial penalty for the local authority if they were audited and found not to be complying with the law. But I've never experienced that. I'm not sure if I've answered the question in its totality, there. I don't know if you can add anything to do that, Pete. 

Yes, Peter, maybe.

I'm not aware of any penalty or any organisation that can take action. The reason that we approached CIPFA is because the guidance does say, taking one financial year with another, that the local authority should aim to break even and that any surpluses should be reinvested into the service, but they can also be put in the general fund. So, I'm not sure—. I don't know the detail of the financial irregularities that the audit commission found. Hopefully, that would be a conversation we could have with finance leads at the summit and take further discussions with them, moving forward.

Just to add a little bit, really, the ring-fencing, or suspense account, or whatever you want to do, is to be considered. I don't think it's compulsory, but it should be considered. I think that's a point that has to be made. 

Sorry, that's your interpretation of the regulations, or is that a means of ensuring the regulations' stipulation that surpluses shouldn't be used for general purposes?

It says—. I haven't got the regs in front of me, but, in the regulation guidance, I think that it should be considered. It doesn't say 'must'—'should' or 'must', I believe. 

Okay, maybe we can—

Yes, I think that's correct. And also the regulations do also provide for any surplus to be put into the general fund. So, it doesn't have to be reinvested into building control, as they stand at the minute.

The auditor general's report says that:

'The principles of the 2010 Regulations require that building control income, including surpluses, is to be used to provide building control activities.'

So, that seems to be a slightly narrower interpretation. 

It's an area that I think we need to have further discussions with CIPFA on. But there is this ability, still, in the guidance to put the surplus into the general fund.

Yes. I think the issue—. As I understand it, the regulations say that they can only be used for building control activities, and there is a suggestion that one way of ensuring that is to have an earmarked reserve that allows greater transparency. So, they can only be used for building control activities, but an earmarked reserve is a very efficient way of ensuring that the purpose of the regulations is met. 

Absolutely, yes. And if I can give you an example, my own authority had an earmarked reserve and that was where building control surpluses were placed and then they were used to fund my trainees and other work that we needed to do in terms of IT.

So, just finally, so maybe a proposal that an earmarked reserve is used universally would be a very quick and easy way, potentially, of ensuring compliance with the purpose of the regulations, that—

Yes.

—surpluses should only ever be used in building control.

Yes, I agree.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Can I bring Mike Hedges back in, please?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I want to talk about performance and monitoring. What other indicators have LABC and councils considered to monitor the performance of building control and building safety services as well as speed?

If I could perhaps start on that, Pete, and then you can talk about your example in Swansea. So, at the minute, LABC operates a quality management system through ISO 9001 and through the British Standards Institute. We fully align that to the operational standards for building safety. At present, 20 of the 22 Welsh authorities are signed up to our British Standards quality management system; the two that aren't are Powys and Monmouthshire, and I assume they have their own system in place. That doesn't cover everything and it doesn't cover the areas in the report that were criticised. We're very happy to work with Ministers to discuss providing wider oversight in Wales moving forward.

Thank you very much. As we all know, Grenfell Tower brought tremendous interest and concern about building control and about what's happened with buildings, and I'm still dealing with the repercussions of it in SA1 and the work that needs to be done there. Does the sector believe that the national performance framework the Welsh Government has been developing would provide a robust oversight of performance in making buildings safe?

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that question. Could you repeat it?

Does the sector believe that the national performance framework the Welsh Government has been developing would provide a robust oversight of performance in making buildings safe?

I've not—. I couldn't answer that question; I don't have the information. I don't know if Pete's been doing some work with that.

No. I know that—. Again, it's work in progress in response to the audit and the recommendations; I'm not aware of any formalised report or methodology.

Just to add, rewinding to your previous question, Peter's covered the quality management system that has been developed by LABC and 20 of the Welsh authorities have taken that on board. Some authorities have got two. We have two in Swansea: we have the corporate QMS system and the LABC system—so, that's belt and braces. And some authorities have examples of their own monthly monitoring. I know that it's key, because it's something that we do in Swansea on a monthly basis. We have performance criteria that are covered in a team brief, for example, where we look at finance, we look at performance in terms of plans, turnaround, inspections, complaints, all that sort of stuff. So, it's going on, but it's not formalised across the 22, but that will be something. The operational standards rules that are going to come in with the new regime, that will cater for that. There'll be development of key performance indicators that every authority will have to do or compare; it will be the same thing.

Years ago—and I mean a long time ago, I think, when I had hair—we did do an element of benchmarking between authorities, but it wasn't strictly adhered to; some authorities didn't participate. So, although there were some benefits gained from it, it only benefited the ones that did participate, if you know what I mean. So, in time, there will be a suite of key performance indicators that we'll be able to monitor and compare performance across the 22.

But you deal with different types of buildings, don't you? I mean, Swansea and Cardiff have an awful lot of high-rise buildings, for example; I don't think there are any high-rise buildings in Powys and I don't think there are many, if any, in Neath Port Talbot, so there's a difference in the type of buildings.

Absolutely, and that presents another problem in the main, going off on a slight tangent. As you say, Mike, it's Cardiff, Swansea, Newport maybe, and Wrexham. They are the four authorities identified. We've got data, if needs be, to evidence that. But those are the authorities, in the main, that will need to provide specialist inspectors and competency at that level. But who's to say that you might not have a random building in Powys that satisfies or requires this dose of scrutiny under the new regime, and anywhere, any rural authority? That could be—I don't know—a hospital or a school, and they wouldn't have that expertise present, and then we'd need to look at these hubs of expertise, the multidisciplinary teams that will address that issue. So, it's all fluid at the minute, and all issues that we need to consider.

Thank you, Cadeirydd.

Thank you very much indeed. Before I bring in the next set of questions, I'd just like to ask to what extent you think, to be effective, the Welsh Government should be working with you on the development of a national performance framework. And if not LABC, who?

I actually think they should be working with us. We've got a lot of experience in a wide range of areas and, through our QMS team, I think there's a real opportunity there for them to work with us and help develop that.

Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Natasha Asghar, can I bring you back in, please?

Thank you so much, Chair. Gentlemen, why do you feel that the auditor general, in his report, actually concluded that council scrutiny of building control and building safety has been so limited to date and that risk management has been inadequate, despite the significance of events leading to the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Act's own ramifications?

I think, perhaps, in part, that was because the level of risk in local authorities and how they look at risk is different. Peter just touched on risk assessment on a project-by-project basis and the fact that there is a lot of risk assessment that is done to determine the quality of the application and the quality of the builder and to determine what needs to be undertaken on that application. I can't imagine that that level of detail was discussed with the auditor general.

Okay. Mr Richards, do you have anything to add?

No, not a lot to add to that—to agree with what Pete just said. I went through the audit process and I was one of the officers in Swansea that was spoken to, so, yes, that finer detail of what goes on behind the scenes I don't think came out in discussion. There is a lot of risk assessment that goes on. I can only comment on what happens in Swansea, but we have individual risk assessments for service delivery. We have individual risk assessments on a case-by-case basis, which will determine numbers of inspections and will determine a fee. That has to take place, and I'm sure it's the same across the 22.

Okay. So, in your opinions, how do you think the LABC can support councils to take a more systematic approach to risk management in the context of the auditor general's findings and recommendations now, going forward?

Again, and they'll hate me for saying this because they're a very busy team, but, through our quality management team and with input from our technical team, I think we can work closely with the Welsh local authorities and look at what the expectation is, and alongside the Welsh Government to see what they feel needs to be achieved.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Again, if I can ask a supplementary to that, to what extent do you feel, if at all, that there would need to be a degree of national monitoring and evaluation of risk management in order to ensure that councils are carrying out their own scrutiny at local level?

I think the building safety regulator, with the operational standards rules and the KPIs will pick up that in the new regime. Under the old regime, private sector providers were registered with the Construction Industry Council approved inspector register. Under the new regime, they will be registered with the building safety regulator, and the building safety regulator will audit all local authorities in England. I know the Welsh Government are yet to decide who will carry out that audit. I think we're in a good position that we could support that work, by development of our QMS, should they want us to.

And it's your understanding that the Welsh Government have made an absolute commitment to that; they just haven't chosen which audit model to follow.

That is my understanding, yes. They just haven't decided how they're going to achieve it.

Okay. Thank you. The next set of questions is back to Adam Price, please.

I think we've probably covered everything that I anticipated you may raise with me. I guess I'd like to, if I could, just do a very short summary in terms of where we are. It is a challenging environment, both from resources and from the timetable. I think we would welcome the committee's support and help in lobbying local authorities, and we would welcome the committee to help us. We feel we've got the know-how, the infrastructure and the ability to recruit and train new people to audit and provide better oversight of building control teams on behalf, or in alignment with, the Welsh Government, and we provide accredited education for all levels of building control, and the BSCF validation assessment is already fully in operation. As I said previously, we are not for profit, and the BSCF, the Building Safety Competence Foundation, is an independent community interest company focused on public good, and it does have a board of industry experts and local authority building control people. We'd welcome your support for the planned summit with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Local Government Association. And, finally, we'll be happy to provide any further information that you require, in written format or further information verbally, should you feel that you need it in the future.

Peter Richards.

Thank you. A couple of things I would like to emphasise, and I have taken this up with Audit Wales—it's a personal thing—I think the wording in the report was unnecessarily sensationalised. It's a public audit and to head it 'Cracks in the Foundations', I think was unnecessary. So, obviously, it's worked against local authority and benefited the private sector, there's no doubt about that, so that's a painful pill to swallow.

In terms of stakeholders that were interviewed, I don't think the right people were spoken to in LABC. The chief executive or the executive directors, like Pete, should have been spoken to. And, clearly, as has already been mentioned, there was no consideration of the progress made to date with LABC in terms of the investment in education and standards, and the financial commitment made by LABC. So, I just wanted to emphasise those few points, really. And also, sorry, I omitted, the Welsh Local Government Association weren't even consulted, so there were some key stakeholders that were omitted, really.

Pete can correct me if I'm wrong, but, to date, I think the figure of £350,000 has been mentioned, which is match funding, as I understand it, for eight trainees. If you do multiples of maths, we're up in the millions, really, to deliver what we really need. I think, by comparison, the professionals exiting the profession in Wales are at a faster rate than the new entrants are arriving. So, we're going to have a problem at some point. It's critical in that process that we retain that experience to help mentor the new trainees, because it would be a pointless exercise otherwise. So, we have to stop that haemorrhaging of experience—a powerful word, maybe, but that is what's happening and what will happen.

So, in terms of a figure, I couldn't put a figure on it, but Pete mentioned, in England, £1.6 million. Was it 110, 120 trainees? You can use that as a comparator. I appreciate there's no money in a pot waiting for us, but we need that assistance, we need that support, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. It might not happen in my time, but it needs to happen, I think.

Peter Keates. 

Yes, it was £16.5 million for about 120 in England. You couldn't just divide the 120 to say how much they cost because there were different intakes over different time periods—three years and two and a half years, and the next will be two years. The ones in Wales are two years, so that £350,000 funds for a two-year period. So, if you were looking to say, 'Well, at the minimum, we'd like to see one in every local authority', then you can work that out from there. How much you need for a long-term benefit, I wouldn't like to say.

Thank you. I'll just ask a devil's advocate question, if I may. You've understandably, as a professional body, promoted yourselves as seeking to obtain a contract for audit for councils, for example. Is there a degree of conflict of interest, of poacher and gamekeeper, in this, and who would be your main competitors for providing that and the other services you've related to us?

I don't think there's a conflict of interest as such. I think we would have to understand what the Welsh Government required and whether we were able to do that as a membership body, because the conflict will come between our role as a membership body supporting our members and the role supporting the Welsh Government in respect of identifying when those members aren't performing how they should. So, we would need to look at that very closely. 

In terms of competition, I don't know whether there are any discussions with the BSR, but the BSR may be an organisation that chose to put themselves forward for that, and I'm sure there are others. 

Okay. Thank you. We're going to move to the last set of formal questions, which come from me, relating to retrospective remediation. How, in your view, have councils in Wales supported efforts to remediate existing buildings and improve fire safety?

As an organisation, we've had no involvement in the discussions on existing buildings, so I couldn't answer that. I don't know if Pete's able to say from his own authority point of view.

Yes, I can mention a little bit. Personally, I've been involved in the building safety stakeholder engagement group, and I've been working in the joint inspection team working group. So, I've been involved personally in that way. In terms of the authority, again, with my awareness, I understand what the Minister, Julie James, has been doing with her efforts to address the issue of orphan buildings and remediation and all the rest of it, so I understand all of that. I know Swansea have been heavily involved in that. I've got colleagues representing on different groups that feed into that. 

So, that's Swansea's engagement, and that continues. I know that's replicated in the city authorities where the issues exist—Cardiff, mainly Cardiff, Newport. So, again, that's work in progress. Mike has mentioned he's obviously heavily involved, and he may understand our role there, and what efforts have been made locally. And that should be taking place across Wales, where relevant. I don't know if I can mention any more on that. I think that's all I can contribute there, I think. 

You mentioned earlier that there were four key authorities. I think the other one you mentioned was Wrexham. I think it was Mr Keates who referred to the possibility—or it might have been yourself—of a random property in Powys, for example. So, how are the other 18 councils engaging, given the possibility of a random property in their patch?

That's going forward. I was talking in the context of going forward, if it happened to be a new build. I know there are pockets of random properties existing. I think there are 171 altogether across Wales, 99 in Cardiff, 42 in Swansea, a few more in Wrexham, a few more in Newport. But there are examples of these properties. They all have to be treated in the same way under the regime that the Minister has created in terms of orphan buildings. So, if they fall into those categories, they have the builders pact, and all those builders that have signed up to that pact. So, if they are relevant, they will be treated in the same way as risk buildings in Cardiff and Swansea. 

Okay, thank you. And what support has LABC provided to its members to help their efforts to understand building safety risks in existing buildings?

LABC initially were involved in discussions with the building safety regulator for the buildings in England, and it was expected that we would be involved in some of the remediation work on those buildings, but BSR have since decided that there won't be a building control input from our members. In terms of building safety in general, there's an enormous amount of information available on our website for all aspects of building safety. We've held webinars and update seminars for not only our members, but local authority leaders, chief execs and heads of building control to update them on building safety and the challenges of building safety. 

The second part of your answer included Wales. Obviously the first bit was England. 

Yes. We've been working on Wales as well. In fact, in terms of the regulations, I don't know why, but historically in England there were what we call the rainbow regulations, so from the first regulations all the way through to the latest regulations, there was a document that was produced for England. We've just been working through and we are finalising that, so that our colleagues in Wales have an equivalent document for Wales. Our Building Safety Competence Foundation covers the Welsh regulations for those who want to prove their competence through that, and our learning and training covers Welsh regulations as well.

Okay, thank you. And again, to what extent do you consider that councils in Wales have a good understanding of building safety risks in existing buildings?

Shall I take that first?

Yes please, Peter. 

Sorry, could you repeat the question, Chair?

Yes, to what extent do you consider that councils in Wales have a good understanding of building safety risks in existing buildings?

Again, I can only use my authority as an example. We have a complete understanding of the identified buildings in Swansea that are in line for remediation, or need remediation. So, it's a complete and thorough understanding in that respect, locally. And it will be the same in the key areas. I can't comment for referring to those random properties here and there. Again, I can't comment on those properties, because it's never—and I've been involved in discussions about those. But I can comment with confidence locally. In Swansea, that understanding and continued involvement, which will need to continue—that understanding is thorough. 

Okay. In your view, again, to what extent is the approach taken by the Welsh Government sufficient to respond to building safety risks in existing buildings?

I think the inroads that have been made to date are commendable. As Mike referred to earlier, the tragedy of Grenfell, I know that we are however many years down the line now, but to the people that are involved and affected that live and reside, lease and own these buildings, it hasn't happened quickly enough that these things have to be addressed properly. The risks need to be considered, the funding needs to be considered and doesn't come easily. But I think the direction that has been quite clearly laid out by the Minister is commendable.

In that context, some of these buildings—and I think of Cardiff, for example—incorporate tenants and owners within the same buildings. Would you extend your comments to both sets of residents, whether they're social or private tenants and the home owners who have been campaigning on these issues locally?

I think that the concerns are different, the pressures are different, the problems are different, but what I've just said in terms of where we are now, or where Welsh Government is in terms of remediation and the plans that are put in place, it's obviously applicable to both. Again, each problem is different, each individual is different, so it's a difficult question to answer, but it's relevant to both. 

Okay. And then, finally, do you have any final comments to make on how efforts to remediate existing buildings are progressing and being supported, including what further actions you might like to see being taken?

Nothing from me. 

And not a lot from me, really. We're not involved directly unless remediation involves the input from my building control team and housing team. Some haven't got to that stage yet, so I can't really comment on progress to date. 

Okay, thank you. Natasha Asghar. 

Thank you very much, Chair. Gentlemen, just a question that's been rattling in my brain since my colleague Adam Price asked you earlier. In relation to the traineeships, you mentioned the course duration is slightly different. I accept that. With £350,000 being spent on eight—technically—trainees, I just wanted to know what exactly is the legal responsibility for them to actually stay within those particular positions within those councils. My only concern is that we're investing—or the Government is investing—so much money in these trainees. If, for example, someone was to go into the army, if you go into the navy and they pay for your degree, for example, there is an obligation for you to actually work and be part of that group organisation for x period of time. What is the period of time for these trainees that we're spending money on?

The £350,000 was for four, and then we match fund that. That's where the eight in Wales came from. The obligation on the individual is that they sign a contract with us and they sign a learning contract as well. If they leave, they have to pay back the learning fees because it's a grant, so they have to pay back the learning fees. We have sadly lost one to the private sector out of the original batch that started, already, and a couple have moved in to their local authority, which is positive for us in that respect.

We feel, when you look at the challenges for local authorities, that the best scenario—whether it's a three-year, a two-year, or a two and a half year contract—is for them to complete their learning with us, their educational learning, whilst carrying out their experience role, learning with a local authority, and they are all placed into different local authorities. There are about 90 involved in England and the eight that I've mentioned in Wales, and the ideal is for them to move to that local authority when their contract ends with us. We have been exploring whether there is a way of formalising that, but we don't think that legally we can obligate them to move across, and we're still exploring that. 

Okay. Sorry. Yes, Mr Richards.

That is a particular problem that we have. Ideally, at the end of their training, they would naturally progress into a role or a vacancy maybe in each individual authority or maybe another local authority, if not in the local authority that they're training in. But, in my experience, the two apprentices that I was able to develop in Swansea, we have a two-year retention in their contracts. They've just professionally qualified and we have facilitated that natural progression into a post, a permanent post, within the authority, but I know that already they have approached by private inspectors offering better salaries, benefits and all the rest of it, and there are examples of that across Wales. I've lost four officers—three officers, sorry—to a private company and those officers are the—. I'd probably refer to them as the middle-aged, the future of building control in Swansea, and now that's been lost. It is an ongoing problem, where our best people are being approached, poached maybe, to use that term, by the private sector and that continues. So, it's a headache, I have to say.

All right. Thank you, Chair. 

Thank you. If Members have no further questions, that brings us to the end of our formal questions. Do you have any additional comments you'd like to add? 

No. I think, earlier, I summarised we're here to help our members and we're happy to support Welsh Government to move this agenda forward. So, no. Thank you for your time. 

Okay. Well, thank you to both the Peters, Peter Keates and Peter Richards. You will be sent a draft transcript of today's session for you to check for accuracy before it's published. But that concludes this session, so thanks very much again for being with us and safe journeys home, or from sitting on the wonderful coast in—.

It's my back garden. [Laughter.] 

I'm sure I was in a meeting with somebody on Monday with the same backdrop, actually, but from your area, but there we are. 

It's my neighbour. [Laughter.]

Members, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of today's meeting. Are Members content? Thank you. I note that the Members are content. I'd be grateful if we could move into private session.