Local Government and Housing Committee

Thank you. Audrey Johns, I'm head of building safety occupation phase policy.

Bore da. Tania Nicholson, deputy director for housing quality and senior responsible officer for this Bill.

Good morning. Steve Pomeroy, head of fire services in the Welsh Government.

Steve Pomeroy, head of fire services in the Welsh Government.

Jo Newth, legal services.

Okay. Croeso. Thank you all for coming in to give evidence today. Cabinet Secretary, perhaps I might begin, then, with some initial questions on the overall approach of the Bill. In evidence, we heard from some witnesses that the Bill is overambitious, given how stretched the housing regulatory sector already is, and of course there are considerable difficulties with housing right across Wales. In those circumstances, are you confident that this Bill will not result in that feared overstretching?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Yes, the current regulatory system for the regulation of multi-occupied buildings is just not fit for purpose. We know that from the many reviews that we've had from the Grenfell tragedy. I have been pleased to hear from stakeholders during the committee sessions that there has been unanimous support during the evidence sessions for the principles of the Bill. I think every resident in multi-occupied buildings across Wales should be provided a level of protection from avoidable risks that they themselves have no control over. I do appreciate that some people think this is ambitious, but I see it very much as a basic right that every resident should be and feel safe in their own home.

We are, as you know, planning a phased commencement of the Bill, which allows local authorities and duty holders across Wales to acclimatise and adjust to the new regime. I expect a phased registration of category 1 buildings to be introduced in the first phase in 2027. Category 2 registration is expected to commence in early 2028. And category 3 duties we expect to follow later in 2028. I think that, with that phased transition, that will allow for a smooth move into that. That will recognise the fact that stakeholders—. The need for preparedness and awareness will be the key to success.

Okay, thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Even given that, it's undoubtedly the case that the Bill would add an extra layer to a regulatory environment that's already complex. Do you see a need to simplify that regulatory landscape for housing standards and safety, given that it's very important that the system is understandable for all those that need to have that understanding?

Absolutely. When I gave evidence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee recently, we did explore the issue of a consolidation of housing law. I'm going to soon write to the committee with further information on that. While I fully accept that principle, I think there's an urgency to legislate for building safety. We can only consolidate what's on the statute book, so that's why I'm keen that we put this on the statute book. The reform will bring about a new building safety regime to help address the issues identified by the various reviews, as I mentioned, and the inquiries into the aftermath of the tragic fire at Grenfell. I think consolidated housing law before that would have only delayed those important reforms. As I said, I do think we are approaching a point where reforms could operate within a body of codified Welsh law, and I very much hope that will happen. But as I said, I will write to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution committee on that, and I'm happy to provide a copy to the committee, if that's useful.

Yes, that would be fine, thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Did you consider amending existing legislation as an alternative approach to this Bill, such as amending the Housing Act 2004?

Yes, from the start of the process, consideration had been given to existing legislation landscape, however, the duties in the Bill are fundamentally different from the housing health and safety rating system, which was established by the Housing Act 2004. The HHSRS places a function on local authorities to evaluate potential risks to health and safety from deficiencies identified in residential premises. The Bill places a proactive requirement on duty holders to assess and manage building safety risks. As you'll know, the Hackitt review did identify serious flaws in the regulatory system, and did recommend greater clarity about who is responsible for managing the safety of buildings in occupation. This is what the Bill does, and I do remain of the view that the Bill is the correct way to achieve this.

Okay, thank you again, Cabinet Secretary. The final question from me, before we turn to other committee members: back in July, when you were before us, Cabinet Secretary, we raised issues in terms of the possible impact on housing supply of the Bill, if enacted. We've heard from many witnesses that they do worry, particularly in terms of the social rented and private rented sector, that there might be an adverse sector on supply. Since we raised this in July, Cabinet Secretary, have you given any further consideration to those issues, and if so, what's your current view?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I do know that the committee's also heard evidence about that, in terms of having an indirect impact on social supply, but I do think that we're not going to solve that problem by allowing people to live in unsafe homes. Our independent analysis has estimated that the average annual cost of the regime would unlikely make building owners or landlords exit the market. I'll just give a few examples, perhaps, of the cost. So, for the owner of a building divided into nine flats, the average cost of the regime would be less than £500 per year. Based on the average private rent in Wales, rental income from the same block of nine flats might be £86,000 per year. And for a house converted into two flats, the average cost of the regime would be £115 per year, so the average rental income from the same house would be £19,000 per year. Obviously, these are average costs, and actual costs will vary between those buildings and between years, but I do hope that that gives a bit of context for the committee.

We know, from our engagement with social housing providers, that many of the measures set out in the Bill have already been implemented by them. So, the additionality in practice for social landlords might not and should not be significant. I was very much sure of that when I visited St Tydfil's Court in Merthyr, and I heard directly from those residents about the process that Merthyr Valleys Homes had put in place for their safety, and what a difference that has been to how they feel about the building that they live in.

Okay, thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Siân Gwenllian.

The figures that you've outlined there, those are for conforming with the regime, yes, in terms of doing the fire assessments and all the paperwork involved. What about if there are major defects? A lot of the housing that we're talking about needs a lot of work on them to bring them up to the standards that we expect. So, have you factored those costs into the type of estimates that you were giving us, or are you just talking about enforcing the actual regime?

So, that was just in terms of the initial regime, but I can see if we've got any further actual costs.

All I would say is, if you own such a building, you probably have to do those works now under the law as it stands. So, in that sense, it isn't a new cost. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, for instance, could just as easily throw up the fact that there are defects in the compartmentation that need remedy. So, if we're looking at the extra costs of the Bill, that isn't one of them. It would also vary an awful lot between just clearing up the common areas and making sure there's no rubbish—that's an afternoon's work—and major structural works. So, it's kind of hard to put a price on it.

But would you accept that those figures that were just given don't reflect the true picture in a lot of circumstances?

I was just trying to give the average, just to give an outline, really, of some of the costs that we have, just to put it in a bit of context. Obviously, there are those other costs that we'd be looking at as we progress with the Bill and see where they might lie. So, that work is going on at the moment. I don't know if anybody else wants to say a bit about the work that's going on to find those other costs.

I think, to answer your question, Siân, yes, those costs that the Cabinet Secretary just mentioned are the costs of the administration of the new system, so they are focused on the new duties that will be in place as a result of this legislation. As Steve says, those costs of remediation exist already in the system. Some of those are being picked up by a remediation programme, the different elements of that, and some of them would be lower level ongoing maintenance and management costs that should be picked up by landlords, building owners and managing agents just by consequence of existing arrangements.

If I could throw one further cost in, the average cost of a single dwelling fire is about £30,000 in terms of damage to property, maybe up to 10 times that if you need to rebuild the property. So, any sense that that risk has reduced has to be factored in as well. But, again, that is too complex to model reliably, for our economists to put an actual figure at the bottom.

Yes, it's just an acceptance that it could be much more in some circumstances in terms of the possibility of those costs being passed on to the tenants, which is my big worry.

Yes, I understand that. As I say, those average costs were just to give an example around the housing supply and the fact that that's where we don't intend to see that sort of pressure, where people would leave the system, rather than some of those costs later on. But as I say, we're working with local authorities on all of the costs as well, and just to identify those operational costs. That looks at what the costs of implementation will be and when they're incurred. So, that work is running alongside the delivery model as well.

And Joel—Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. It was just something that came to mind now as we were talking about costs—I remember in the last evidence session we had, with the National Residential Landlords Association, they expressed concern about the Welsh Government underestimating the costs, and they used a figure of £62 as the average yearly cost for a house in multiple occupation. And I just want to get some idea about whether they were right in citing that figure, and where did that number come from?

Yes, Audrey knows all the detail of the costs, as much as we have.

Thank you. Yes, they were right in citing that figure for HMOs. That's the figure that we gave in our regulatory impact associated with HMOs. But the figure is much higher when it comes to looking at category 2 and category 1 buildings. So, for category 2 buildings, for example, the estimated cost of a fire risk assessment is in the region of £1,100 and slightly higher again for category 1 buildings. So, yes, they've picked that figure, but that figure is for the much smaller buildings.

And that's an accurate cost for an HMO, then? Because that seems a bit low, if that makes sense, especially when we look at this, I imagine. Because I will be speaking about fire risk assessors later, and the dearth we have of them, and I've been looking at the average costs that they charge anyway, and they’re quite substantial, really.

Yes, so it's the additional cost for complying with the duties under the Bill. There are already costs for undertaking fire risk assessments in HMOs, but what the Bill is doing is bringing that into the residential environment and tailoring the risk assessment to meet those needs. So, that 62 hours is the additional cost that will be associated with that.

I think it's useful just to say some of the numbers of the properties, actually, because HMOs are under 15,000 in Wales and the category 2 that Audrey just mentioned is 449. So, just to give the numbers. We know that the most significant category will be category 1—there are 180 buildings. So, just to put it in context, I think. Category 3, obviously, is the highest number with 51,000—just over 51,000.

Okay. We'll turn to Lee Waters, then. Lee.

Just to extend that, I think this is a real area of concern and I raised this last time. I'm still not convinced there is policy join-up here. You as Cabinet Secretary have said there is a housing emergency. We know there are significant challenges in the overall supply of houses for social rent, and we've had consistent evidence here from the sector that this is going to further suppress their ability to bring forward units for social rent. Why are you not joining those two things up?

I think we are joining them up. I've given the example where I don't think that there will be that pressure that we've heard of. Obviously, we will continue to monitor—

So, they're wrong.

I don't think we'll see that pressure of people leaving the system. I've given the example of the costs. With registered social landlords, for example, as I mentioned, St Tydfils Court in Merthyr Tydfil with Merthyr Valleys Homes, they have put things in place already. I think a lot of registered social landlords are doing this.

Yes, but we've also had direct evidence from the RSLs saying that the additional costs that they say are significant will affect their overall ability to borrow because they'll have lower profit to operate with, and that will reduce the number of properties that they can bring forward. Why are you so dismissive of that clear evidence from the sector?

We speak to the sector as well regularly, and we'll continue to do so as we work through this process. But, as I say, I genuinely think we've got some really good work going on in housing supply that is happening. I'm chairing the implementation group following the good work that you did across stakeholders. I'm on the second meeting of that. We've got people taking ownership of those recommendations to drive that forward. So, whilst we're taking this Bill forward, which will see people in safe homes in Wales—people will feel safe; that's what we want to see in Wales—

With respect, that's not my question. I don't doubt that you're talking to the sector. The sector has given evidence to this committee that says very clearly this will suppress their ability to bring forward investment, and you are not addressing that.

I think we are addressing that by some of the other policy levers that we do to ensure that they do bring forward that housing supply, and I don't think this is a reason to say that they shouldn't be bringing that forward, so—

But do you accept that this will have a direct impact on their balance sheet ability to borrow?

I think that that is something that—. I'm very happy to listen to them, but I do not think—

Well, you're not listening to them, with respect, because we're telling you what their evidence is and you're not engaging with it.

Well, we are listening to them, and I think—

So, what are you doing to address their concern that it'll reduce their ability to borrow?

As I said, we've got—. We've given you an example of the flat—. The average private rent in Wales, rental income, blocks of nine flats—

Sure, but they are still saying that this will add significantly to their liabilities.

But I'm giving those annual costs here.

So, they're wrong.

I think that's something we can keep discussing with them, but I think we have to look at some of the facts that are here that I've given you, which is that, with a block of nine flats, with the average cost of the regime at less than £500 a year, based on the average price of private rent in Wales, income for the same block of flats might be £86,000 a year.

Okay, let's move on to a specific point, which is still on the general but on to the inclusion of category 3, because here is a concrete example of how the regulation is going to add to the sector. There's some dispute in the evidence that we've had that including category 3, which you didn't consult on, is proportionate to the risk that they present. We heard from both Community Housing Cymru and from Trivallis that the cost of adding category 3 fire risk assessments, which are already covered by existing safety checks, will add an extra £100,000, one RSL said, to carry out the category 3 assessments. That is beyond the figures you're quoting to us, which we've been told by multiple witnesses will add to their cost base. So, why are you still insisting that the costs are trivial?

I'm not insisting the costs are trivial. I'm trying to say—. I've given the example of those average costs. I said there's a body of work going on to look at further costs, as I mentioned from Siân Gwenllian's question.

Just to go on to a couple of things, though, a few points that you raised, one around the category 3 and how we got to category 3, I think it's really important to understand how we've created that category 3, because in the White Paper, as you will know, the early suggestion was for having two categories, and that would have included all of those buildings that are now in category 3. So, we have responded to the feedback that we had from that consultation that, if we had just had two categories, it would have put too much of a burden on those smaller properties. So, that's why we have split it up into three categories. So, that is from direct feedback from the White Paper. So, that is something that we have been—. Just to be clear, those smaller buildings would have been in the second category if we had not split it into a third category, if you see what I mean. So, we did listen to people and to the feedback.

Well, you've replaced one bad idea with another bad idea.

I think we've been more proportionate to the risks that are in the third category.

And yet, we heard directly from Trivallis that the category 3s are already covered by fire risk assessments. So, they said that they cover social landlords that have buildings with no common parts or annual assessments and reviews. So, you're putting on, potentially, to a block of two or three flats, or two houses with one up, one down, a set of regulatory burdens that are already covered by risk assessments that they have, but requiring an additional level of costly work.

No, it's not additional. I'd just challenge the assertion that the current system works well, because if we didn't have category 3 buildings in the Bill, they would continue to be subject to the fire safety Order, which I think is widely acknowledged to be unsuitable for residential buildings, and it is complex for landlords to understand. So, the fire safety Order at the moment is, really, for buildings that are not for residential use. It is for workplaces, so that's why we are trying to simplify that, and I think that is a benefit to those people who live in those houses at the moment.

Okay, but back to the cost, then, which you haven't addressed, I was directly saying there's an additional cost for category 3s to RSLs, which your officials seem to be not recognising.

Well, as I say, we're working with local authorities and RSLs throughout this, identifying costs. I don't know if officials want to come in.

I'd just reiterate what you said, Cabinet Secretary—those buildings are currently subject to the fire safety Order. We are replacing that by the provisions under the Bill. Steve, I don't know if you want to say anything about additionality in terms of costs.

I presume you heard the evidence of CHC and Trivallis. What's your response to what they said?

The fire safety Order says you must conduct a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment, and you must keep it up to date. Very unhelpfully, it doesn't say what either of those things means. What we've tried to do in the Bill is to draw out what 'suitable and sufficient' means, and to draw out what 'up to date' means. I don't think that there's anything substantially new there; it is clarifying what the Order requires of a residential landlord. A fire risk assessment for a building in which people sleep that isn't done by a competent person is very probably not suitable and sufficient within the meaning of the fire safety Order. A fire risk assessment that is not at least reviewed every year is very probably not kept up to date for the purposes of the fire safety Order. So, somebody who isn't doing that now is at risk of breaching their existing legal obligation.

So, why are they telling us it's going to cost them an additional £100,000 to carry it out?

I don't know.

You don't think that's a credible figure.

It's not for me to say how they do business and what they think their costs are, but—

Well, it is for you to say. That's the whole point of this session—it is for you to say. We've had evidence, you're saying it's not right and you're not telling us why you don't think it's right.

I can't personally see why there is £100,000 of extra cost there unless there is something that they are doing or not doing now that they maybe ought to be doing under the fire safety Order.

So, what did you think of the evidence we received. If we, as a committee, are to dismiss that and take your word for it, I think we need a good reason. So, what is it? Tania.

I think we can pick that up with Trivallis and the other people that gave evidence to this committee, just to ensure that there is absolute clarity in terms of the expectations of the legislation, compared to, as Steve highlighted, the requirements under the existing arrangements.

Well, they gave evidence some weeks ago. Why haven't you picked it up already?

We are continuing to engage all the time. Over the summer, we held a lot of engagement sessions, with over 400 people—

With respect, this is the consistent answer: 'We're talking to the sector. We're listening to the sector'. But you're not, are you, because we're getting this evidence. You know, this is serious stuff for us as a committee. This is going to have direct impact on the ability to provide social homes. Cutting against your own targets, cutting against the evidence you've had from the sector, it's going to make it more complicated to achieve your own target, and you're answer is, 'We're listening to the sector'. And they're giving us specific examples of how this will add to the regulatory burden, add to the cost, and you don't have good answers to that, other than, 'We're talking to them'.

And we are talking to them. We held webinars over the summer with over 400 people attending.

Excellent. But you're still not agreeing on the facts.

I think there's probably some misunderstanding in terms of the expectations under the Bill and the current arrangements.

Well, that's a problem, then, isn't it?

It is a problem; it's something that we need to work with the sector on to ensure there is that level of understanding, going forward.

You can't expect us to pass a law of this gravity on the basis that there are some problems, and, 'We'll sort it out; we're talking to them'. This is law. We can't put into law things that are going to make things worse, and you're not giving us any good reason not to.

The intention of this Bill is to make things better, and better for the people who are living in these properties.

And there are unintended consequences we're told about that you're not recognising.

And I think that that is something—. As Tania has said, we'll pick that up with Trivallis following today, and we will write to the committee on that outcome, so that we can make sure that the committee's sighted on that as well.

Lee, before you go on, I think Lesley wanted to come in. Lesley.

I just wanted to pick up on something you said, Steve, about you thinking that maybe the confusion's come about because they could not be doing things that they should be doing. How widespread do you think that could be, and is that something that you seriously think is happening?

I would be disappointed if a major social landlord like Trivallis has got it basically wrong, which is what surprises me about their evidence, to pick up the discussion we've just had. I would be disappointed if they've made such basic misunderstandings of their current duties.

So, how is it monitored?

It's monitored by the fire and rescue service, who will inspect and enforce as they need to. If they find fire risk assessments that are not suitable and sufficient, or not kept up to date, they can and do take enforcement action.

So, as the Welsh Government, do you have any part in that?

Only in terms of our relationship with the service, and scarcely a day goes by that I don't speak to somebody in the fire and rescue service—not necessarily about this. But that is quite a close relationship.

Further down in the market, if I can put it that way, we may have more of a problem with smaller landlords not fully grasping their responsibilities now.

That's what concerns me, that if a big company, a big organisation—

But that's the case now, and it is not helped by the fact, as the Cabinet Secretary said, that the fire safety Order is written as though it were workplace health and safety legislation. It is very hard for a sole-trader landlord to pick it up and understand what it requires of them when it is talking about dangerous chemicals and fire drills. So, what we're trying to do here is to make something that resonates, something that's easy to understand and easy to apply, in keeping smaller properties safe. But I couldn't say—lower down in the market, I suspect there is more of a problem with, for want of a better word, 'ignorance' of current requirements. But that is the case now, and it's something that we're trying to address by simplifying what's on the statute book.

Okay, Lesley. Lee.

Well, I don't understand what the problem is. You are head of fire services for the Welsh Government. You've just told us that evidence we had from a major social landlord sounds to you like they're not properly enforcing the current law.

I don't know, and I deliberately said that to—

But shouldn't you have phoned them up and asked them? You are head of fire services.

I don't have enforcement functions and nor does the Cabinet Secretary. The enforcement duty lies with the fire and rescue service.

So, what have you done after hearing this evidence, which concerns and worries you?

It may well be, I do not know—

Shouldn't you have found out, if it concerned and worried you? You are head of fire services.

We will write to you following this around Trivallis.

Lee, we're hearing primarily from the Cabinet Secretary on these issues.

This seems awfully casual in terms of—. You're telling us this is serious and it's going to affect the safety of—. You know, we've heard all the words of why you're doing this, and it seems there are klaxons being sounded by the sector here that the Welsh Government appears deaf to. I'm really troubled by it.

Like I say, we will certainly write to you following our discussions with Trivallis—

Yes, that doesn't answer the question I was putting, over why you haven't followed up with the sector. A specific concern they flagged about the current application of law, which your official, head of fire services, has just told this committee that he doesn't think that they—. It appears to him—he's concerned and worried—that they may not be properly understanding and interpreting current law.

Could I just correct that? I did—. I am not an expert in social housing, I do not know Trivallis's business model and I don't want it on the record that I or anyone else here has suggested that Trivallis is breaking the law. We have no evidence to that effect.

You put it on the record, not me.

No, I didn't.

Well, the record will reflect what you said. Let's just move on. The issue of the timing of the introduction, you've set out earlier, Cabinet Secretary, the timing, and the category 3s are going to be coming in, I think you said, in 2028. Is that right?

Yes.

That's two years away. Given the evidence we've had about the complexity this presents to the sector and the repeated concerns that they think that this is too soon, is there any flexibility you're willing to consider in the timetable of the introduction?

I understand that. So, again, just to say that we do have that phased commencement and I do think it's important to make sure that we have a phased commencement, so that people have an understanding and we build up the knowledge in the sector as well, and knowledge for tenants and residents. With category 3 buildings, they are already subject to those fire safety duties under the fire safety Order, and that includes the need to have fire risk assessments, so I don't think that they'll be as great as some people have suggested.

But would you consider changing—

But, yes, I think that if there are concerns around that then—

There are concerns. We've heard about them. So, would you consider changing—

And I think we'll keep working, but absolutely understand that if that time frame is challenging and it continues to be, then that is something that we will look at, extending that. Obviously, the main concern is with the higher buildings at the moment, with the 180 that we have, but they'll be dealt with first. Obviously not all local authorities will have category 1 buildings within their area and within that region—

We're talking about category 3 here.

About category 3, yes. So, we'll be bringing category 2 on and then there'll be more of those, so local authorities will be learning from that and category 3—

On the timings, specific timing isn't on the face of the Bill, that's right, isn't it? So, you are able through regulation—

Yes, to—

—and you're open if, in light of experience, that's proving to be troublesome, you're open to be being flexible.

Absolutely, yes.

Okay. Thank you. We've had representations as well from the telecoms sector about the experience in England where the potential roll-out of mobile and broadband has been slowed because of the extra regulations when we're putting masts and aerials on buildings. That is their experience in practice in England. They are pretty concerned that it's likely to happen in Wales. In terms of policy join-up, where the Government has a policy of encouraging greater roll-out of mobile and broadband, what are you doing to respond to this concern?

So, we understand that this has been a misunderstanding by the sector and officials have met representatives of the sector just to clarify the position. I don't know if there's any—

There are quite a lot of misunderstandings going on, aren't there? Doesn't that raise concerns?

I think it's because that happened in England rather than Wales. But then, following the evidence that you had, which I think had come from a misunderstanding, officials have been in contact and that has been rectified since, I believe.

What happened here was that—. We met Mobile UK, which is the trade body for mobile network providers, and Openreach, which we're all familiar with. They've had issues in England because the Building Safety Act 2022, the English legislation, requires all building regulation approvals for larger buildings to go through the single building safety regulator, and there's a backlog there. The BSR is progressing it. This Bill doesn't deal with building regulations or construction at all. There are some detailed actions that the head of building regulations in Welsh Government is following up with the sector about how to process approvals here, but here we have no single regulator, they go through the local authorities as they do now, and the Bill doesn't change that. And I think we parted on contented terms. If there's a follow-up there—again, I'm not an expert on the building regulations either—if there's any follow-up, we can write. But it was, as the Cabinet Secretary said, a misreading of the English legislation for the Welsh draft legislation.

Okay. Well I think it would be useful to confirm with them that they are content and that it's not going to cause any further knock-on consequences. In terms of houses in multiple occupation, we've heard from Swansea Council that

'there doesn't seem to be anything in addition in this Bill that we don’t already have to deal with those particular properties'.

So, it's not adding any value, but it is adding complexity and cost. What's your response to that?

I think that this Bill simplifies things in terms of fire safety because the Bill doesn't impose any substantial new duties on HMO landlords. Those responsible for relevant HMOs already assess and manage their fire safety risks under that fire safety Order, and the new fire safety duties that will be introduced by the Bill will replace that. That means that the approach to fire risk assessment can be better tailored to the requirements in those residential buildings. But in terms of duplication of duties and the requirements for HMOs to be licensed, we did establish a working group with local authorities to look at it, and as a result of those discussions with local authorities about the requirements that are already placed on certain HMOs, we have not imposed duties such as registration or residents' complaints on those buildings. So, we listened to the concerns raised by local authorities, and that's what you see in the draft Bill.

But there are remaining ongoing concerns that we've heard repeated in the evidence we've received. I'm sure you've seen it. The WLGA are saying that funding and clearer guidance to support existing regulation would be better than layering new regimes.

Well, as I say, I think this does simplify this regime in terms of fire safety—

They're saying the direct opposite, though. They say you're layering new regimes.

But I think that's—

There seems to be a profound disagreement here. You think everything's fine, and you're talking to them, and we're being repeatedly told that it's adding complexity and adding cost. They can't both be right.

No. I've tried to explain how we're simplifying that. We will work with local authorities on the development of the guidance as well. That is something that we continue to do, and if there is confusion, we will make sure that we work with local authorities rather than letting any confusion fester any further.

Well, it's currently festering quite healthily, and I'm not really clear what you're doing to address their concerns, other than saying you're going to continue talking to them. You're not listening to what they're telling us.

They've also told us that extending mandatory licensing, as they have done in England, would be a preferable approach. Why have you decided against that?

I think whatever the argument is for extending HMO licences, it couldn't be a suitable means for mandating the detailed and continued management of fire risks that the Bill sets out. I don't think local authorities would have the capability to enforce such requirements. I think extending mandatory licensing would have consequences far wider than fire safety. As I say, the focus on Part 2 of the Bill is just on fire safety. So, enforcement under Part 2 is by the fire safety authorities. Local authorities may already introduce additional licensing schemes to cover smaller HMOs that are not subject to mandatory licensing, such as where there is evidence of poor management or local housing pressures. I know that, for example, in Newport and Wrexham, they both have already extended licensing of smaller HMOs, and I think that's helped to cover effective properties that fall below that three-storey threshold. So, I think having a decentralised approach allows for that targeted regulation based on local housing pressures. So, again, that is, I think, where we are, rather than mandating licensing.

Just moving on to remediation, we've heard a fair bit of concern that the existing efforts to deal with buildings that are already facing risks, particularly from the Cladiators, are not proceeding at the pace they need to. We heard from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that they thought the Bill was a lost opportunity not to make further progress on that. We heard from South Wales Fire and Rescue Service that additional legislative powers would be helpful in dealing with existing situations. Why is this something that you've decided not to proceed with, and are you open to reconsidering?

Obviously, that was not what we consulted on in the White Paper—

You didn't consult on category 3, either.

Well, we did consult on all—. Category 3 was—. It was for all buildings, so that was just split rather than actually not including those buildings. It's not like we included another lot of buildings with category 3; they were already included, and we've taken a proportionate approach on that.

But in terms of the building safety, this Bill is part of a wider suite of measures that we have around buildings in Wales. We are working hard on our remediation programme. Again, I think it was last week that I met with the strategic stakeholder group, and that has been taking forward the work and looking at and very much a real partner for us—

With respect, Cabinet Secretary, you're telling us again about all the things that you are doing, and I don't doubt that at all. I'm simply pointing out that the evidence that we've had was saying that it's not sufficient.

Yes, and I think we have—. As I say, we didn't consult on this in this Bill. We're working closely with the UK Government on legislation as well, talking to them about anything that we can learn from what they're putting through at the moment, and very much keeping those conversations open, because we do want to see the remediation programme move as quickly as possible.

And to the point from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that the Bill is a lost opportunity, and from South Wales Fire and Rescue Service that they'd welcome further powers?

As I said, I'm very keen to see what we can do with that in the future. We're keen—. We're making sure that—

We're talking about this Bill, not in the future.

But this Bill, as I said, is for the occupation phase of a building. So, this is what we have focused on. That was the initial scope of the Bill that we consulted on, and we're keen to see and hear, and learn from the UK, where they're taking things forward as well, about what we can use. But, as I said, we consulted on this Bill in this form, rather than the extended powers that you've mentioned—

I'll leave it there, Chair.

I'm just going to bring Siân in.

Because of the great problems that we've heard about regarding renovating buildings, doesn't it make sense, as a result of that evidence that we've heard from the Cladiators and others about the slow place of this work by the large builders, to put, within Welsh legislation, in this Bill, some of the provisions that the Westminster Government is currently considering? In July 2025 this year, the Government introduced a remediation acceleration plan update. And it says in that:

'By the end of 2029, any landlord who has failed to remediate a building over 18 metres—without reasonable excuse—will face criminal prosecution, with unlimited fines and/or imprisonment.'

And it goes on. So, we are going to end up with a regime that is much weaker in terms of remediation than what will be in force in England. So, why aren't we expanding the scope of this Bill, so that we have Welsh-made legislation in this Bill around remediation?

Diolch, Siân. As I said, we are working—officials are working—with UK officials on the remediation acceleration plan, to see what we can use. So, we're talking to them about anything that we can use—

In this Bill?

As I said, this was not in the scope of the Bill. This was outside of the scope of the Bill—

Well, that's what I asked you. Why don't you bring it into the scope of the Bill?

Well, as I said, that does take time. This is about the occupation phase. Some of these things haven't been developed in England yet, so I think we need to be clear about that. We are keen to learn from the work that they're doing, to see if there are things that we can use, as I say. But, also, the landscape, as we know, is very different in Wales to England. So, as I mentioned, category 1 buildings, we have 180 of them in Wales, compared to the many—. I think Tania would probably know the number more than me, but there's obviously a much—

But if it's smaller, that would make it easier to have it in our legislation.

But I think that's not just about the number, though, is it, but about the work that goes on within the Bill to scope that out, to consult on that, to work on that. That is not within the scope of our Bill. But I'm keen to use what we can to push forward as much of this as possible, because, like you, and like the committee, I want to see pace in that. But, as I said, in England, this hasn't come in yet. So, some of this work hasn't been done.

We'll have to press on, I'm afraid, Siân; time is rapidly disappearing. Lesley.

Thanks very much, Chair. Can we look at the delivery model? When you were in front of the committee last, Cabinet Secretary, you were talking about building safety authorities and what you were considering—having 22. I think it's fair to say that everyone who came before us was opposed to the 22 local authorities being 22 building safety authorities. In fact, the local authorities themselves thought that they wouldn't be able to cope with it. The majority, I would say, would think that we should have three regional building safety authorities to align with the fire and rescue services, and I wonder what you've considered since you were in front of this committee, if you've had any further thoughts on that.

Diolch. I absolutely think—. At that meeting, I said that I didn't want to see 22, and I know that that's what we all didn't want to see. So, that was not considered. I haven't seen the local partnership report yet, but it's been recently received by officials, so they're preparing some advice on that. I do understand that the preferred model is emerging for local authorities to work on the footprint of the three fire and rescue authorities. I think that, once a model has been agreed, officials will proceed in supporting local authorities in the development of the critical path. So, we're very much seeing that as the preferred model at the moment, but as I said, that advice will be coming out very shortly.

Okay. So, you're definitely not going to make the local authorities the—

I think that that was never the option, to have 22 of those. That was not what we wanted to see. I'm keen to understand and learn what the model would look like and, as I said, I've understood through the work that has gone on with this committee that that model of the fire and rescue footprint is something that people seem to see as sensible. As I said, that work is coming back from Local Partnerships and I'll write to you as soon as that's—

So, what's the timescale for you to consider the report?

I know that officials have received that, but I don't know when the advice—

We're just working up—. I think that we received last week the final report from Local Partnerships. The lead director from Local Partnerships, who has been working on this for us, came to present to the Cabinet Secretary's strategic stakeholder group last week. They presented the three-footprint model, and that went down really well. Following that, they've submitted their report to us and we're just finalising some advice for the Cabinet Secretary about what that model is proposed to look like.

Okay. What about the joint inspection team that you've established? Do you think that that could be considered to be the building safety authority?

The work of the joint inspection team, bringing together local authorities and fire and rescue authorities, does provide an opportunity to learn about what works and to prepare for that increase in joint working ahead. I don't think that a separate body, independent of local authorities and the FRAs, is appropriate. It wouldn't create any new capacity within the system, and what could happen would be that it could fragment the capacity that already exists. Also, the Grenfell Tower inquiry recognised the enforcement role that FRAs have in regulating buildings, and that they must inform the operational response to fires and vice versa. So, to separate them would not only create different workforce pressures, but the worry is that it could increase risk in that way.

Does the Local Partnerships report have a view on that?

I haven't seen the report, so I don't know.

I'm not sure that we specifically asked Local Partnerships in terms of the joint inspection team, but I'm happy to go back and look again at the report. Maybe it came up in the engagement that Local Partnerships has done, so we can definitely write to the committee with any further information on that.

That would be helpful.

All I could add is that I know that, in the conversations that the fire and rescue service had with Local Partnerships, the service was against the notion of a single regulator, for the reasons that the Cabinet Secretary has just described: it splits off fire safety from firefighting, and that brings its own risks.

But I do understand that the joint inspection team—. I think it was really good to hear the positive support for the work that they have done. So, I think that that is really good to hear about. Just to say that I'm also open to considering whether the remit of local joint inspection teams might evolve in light of the findings of the evaluation and other evidence from stakeholders. So, I'm keen to see what more they can do.

As a committee, once you've had the advice from officials and you've considered it on the back of the Local Partnerships report, again, going back to the timescale, when, as a committee, will we hear further information about that?

I'm very keen to tell you whenever I get that information. I'm happy to make something available as quickly as possible and write to you as soon as possible on that. Obviously, all I can do is emphasise that we need to see that quickly, so I'm sure that that will—.

Okay. On skills and workforce gaps, I think that this is an area of great concern. What particularly struck me was that we had evidence from someone around environmental health officers and the lack of them in—. Well, I'm sure it's across the UK, but certainly in Wales. And we're asking more and more of these officers. He'd been to university, where he said they would churn out 50 environmental health officers, and they would all get jobs, because that capacity was needed, and now it's about a fifth of that. The number of environmental health officers is clearly an issue, alongside lots of other members of the workforce.

I'm just wondering what discussions you've had with Cabinet colleagues, with Government colleagues, around skills and how we are going to ensure that we have the workforce for when this Bill is implemented. It isn't a quick implementation of this Bill, but they are concerned already that we're not going to have the workforce to be able to implement it.

Absolutely. Skills comes up time and time again more generally in this sector in every meeting that I have, whether it's related to building more homes or with local authorities. Those are the discussions I've had with my Cabinet colleague Jack Sargeant in terms of skills, and also early discussions with Lynne Neagle and Vikki Howells in their roles as well. So, skills very much is an important aspect.

For this Bill, we've stood up a work stream to support local authorities with their strategic workforce planning, and that workforce plan will be co-designed with local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association. The plan will focus on recruitment, retention and skills development, and it'll feed into investment into skills and apprenticeship training under the new regime so that we do have a cohesive approach to that workforce planning.

We have developed a higher apprenticeship for environmental health officers. This is something that my predecessor did, and that went live earlier this year. The programme is already supporting apprentices in environmental health across Wales.

At a strategic level, officials are collaborating with colleagues in the skills department in Qualifications Wales, Medr, the regional skills partnerships, just to name a few, and they will be identifying those skills gaps, aligning qualification and planning for the future, where we need to make sure that we have the right skills to deliver this Bill. It's absolutely something that isn't just relating to an issue in Wales, but is very much here—

Just picking up on your work with local authorities, again, one of the concerns from local authorities was how they would, I suppose, initially recruit, but certainly retain staff, because they can't offer competitive levels. We get this across all aspects of the public service, don't we, but what specific work have you done with local authorities around their ability to attract and then obviously retain—I'll go back to environmental health officers, because I know that in my own local authority, this is a real issue.

Absolutely. Again, it came up at a meeting that I had last week around skills in local authorities. And registered social landlords feel that sometimes RSLs, or the private sector, attract and take away those skilled employees from local authorities, so I do recognise that. We do see that across all housing services. Local Partnerships have expertise and experience in that, so we are keen to learn from that. And they're going to build this into their work with local authorities on a critical path to establishing that delivery model for building safety authorities. So, I think that there is something there that we can learn from within Local Partnerships.

Have you had conversations with local authorities around sharing staff?

I think that is something that does get raised. I'm keen to see where that is possible, because I think it is an important aspect. I don't think that's always—. Local authorities aren't always keen perhaps to do that as much as maybe we'd like. But I think there are ways in which we need to really tackle this, and, as I say, if we keep doing the same thing, we're going to get the same result, aren't we? So, there is a lot under pressure. So, as I say, we're keen to learn from Local Partnerships to see what we can do outside our framework of contract.

Okay, Lesley?

Can I just have one final question? I'm going back to environmental health officers again, because it was very stark, the evidence we had. What discussions have you had with Jack Sargeant around apprenticeships? Because they have them in England; we don't have them in Wales.

Yes, I have had conversations with Jack Sargeant around that. Again, that's a continuing conversation. We do meet regularly about this, so I think that's something that we can keep the committee informed of as well, because we do know—

I’d be really interested on that specific point, Chair.

Yes, we can make sure we write to you on that.

Thank you.

Okay. Lee.

Very briefly. If you wouldn't mind writing to us with a bit more information on the workforce plan, that sounds very welcome. I'm keen to understand a bit more about it.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay. Peter Fox.

Thank you. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Councils have shared that the Bill might be clashing with the Housing Act. For example, they point out the statutory duty to take enforcement action when they identify a category 1 hazard. How does the Bill work alongside the existing statutory duty? Will local authorities be acting unlawfully if they fail to take action under the Housing Act?

The housing health and safety rating system—or the HHSRS—and the duties in the Bill are fundamentally different. The HHSRS places functions on local authorities to evaluate potential risks to health and safety in residential premises. It doesn't place a proactive requirement on duty holders to assess and manage building safety risks. That was one of the gaps identified by the Hackitt review, and that's what the Bill is seeking to redress. It doesn't amend duties under the Housing Act 2004. They'll run alongside the Bill in the same way as they currently run alongside the fire safety Order. Local authorities and the FRAs already work together to determine how far safety risks should be enforced in some residential buildings, and we understand that the fire and rescue authority will often take the lead in that. So, in future, as they do now, they'll need to consider how best to use their respective enforcement powers to achieve the right outcome. To help them avoid any uncertainty, we intend to publish guidance on this, and we'll work with local authorities and the fire and rescue service on the development of that guidance to ensure clarity around the operation of that regime.

Okay. Thanks. It's a shame there wasn't guidance earlier, really, so that they didn't have these concerns, because when local authorities flag concerns like this, you think, 'Hang on, why didn't they know or understand the legislation that was coming forward?' But I think that will be welcome.

But we'll be doing that guidance with them as well.

We've also heard that special measure orders are unlikely to be used in practice. I just wondered have we learnt anything from previous orders, like the empty dwelling management orders, and the barriers to them being used. Is there an opportunity, or should we be looking more at how these powers will be used in practice? Is there an opportunity to review them if it's not working?

We don't intend that there will be many special measure orders, because they're designed as a tool to use when other measures have failed, but where a breach must be remedied. They can only be used for category 1 buildings. As I said, there are 180 of those in Wales, so that will be the number that they could be applied to.

I do appreciate that the empty dwelling management orders are not straightforward, and in our discussions with them about this, local authorities' primary concern was about capacity and cost. So, we'll need to address the challenges around capacity and cost, but if residents in our tallest buildings are at risk due to a failing, that could be a risk to a significant number of people, so it's important that there is a tool available to remedy that.

Thanks for that. On contravention orders, have you considered that it may not be appropriate to rely on the courts to enforce orders made by the residential property tribunal in situations where action needs to be taken urgently?

Contravention orders are part of a process, so in that process, a warning must be issued to the resident by an accountable person first, and then the resident must be given time to take the necessary steps to remedy a breach. Obviously, residents' rights are paramount and we must ensure that the correct processes are being followed when requiring a resident to do something or not to do something. So, applications to the residential property tribunal are generally more straightforward and less costly than applications to the court. So, requiring the accountable person to apply to the tribunal for an order, I think is the right approach to take. I do recognise that there may be some instances when action must be taken urgently. So, there are alternative options available, such as an urgent action notice under section 83(3) of the Bill, or access by enforcing authority. So, the Bill doesn't take away any rights of access. There are often terms in leases allowing landlords to gain access if it's needed for things like maintenance, so, we're not taking anything away from that.

Okay, Peter? Lee, did you—?

Yes, can I just touch on this issue of putting a building into special measures, if that's not cutting across your questions, Peter? Thank you. We heard evidence that the current process of putting a building into special measures is very difficult, and, as you say, it's a last resort. But if a local authority puts a high-rise building into special measures, they're effectively responsible for it, which has a huge cost implication for them that they have no way of funding. So, they're very reluctant to do that, and even more reluctant because of the fact that there are no provisions in the Bill to take a building out of special measures, which does seem to be an oversight. So, you've made provision for bringing it in, but not for taking it out. So, in practice, what we're being told is that a local authority is not going to do it, so, in a sense, the power is moot. Why has that not been thought through, or what can you do to reflect the feedback that we've had?

In terms of the end to a special measure order, I think if you had the arbitrary end to that—. You know, we need to make sure that the work is done to remedy the problem, so I think it's just about the importance that the time is given to consider the impact that ending an order will have on residents. For example, the tribunal may need to consider whether alternative mitigation measures are needed. I think local authorities would want to consider what steps must be taken to remedy the breach and how they'll determine that an order has been complied with before they make that application. But the Bill does contain provisions about varying the revocation of a special measure order, so that is already in the Bill. I think that is sufficient, because I think we need to—

Sorry, for my understanding, 'varying the revocation'—what does that mean?

Yes. You go for it.

So, paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 makes a provision about the varying or revocation of special measures orders. So, for example, the special measures manager, if they're satisfied that they've completed their job, they can hand it back to the accountable person, they can make an application to the tribunal at that stage, for the order to be varied or revoked, as can the building safety authority, or the fire safety authority, or other accountable persons for the building to which the order applies. So, there's quite a broad range of people there with an interest in the building who can apply at the right time to the tribunal to say, 'The matters have been resolved; please can you now revoke the order?' So, there is provision in the Bill for that.

Okay, to be clear, the Bill does allow special measures status to be handed back, to be closed off, to be ended.

Yes.

Well, there doesn't seem to be an understanding of this point in the evidence that we've had. So, this seems to be a pattern, this morning, of there's misunderstanding, there's some confusion in the sector, and here's another example where your evidence is contradicting the other evidence we've had. So, are you not, overall, concerned that there's a theme here? The sector's not ready for this Bill, is it, given the level of misunderstandings that have repeatedly come up this morning?

As I said, we continue to work with the sector on all of this. It will be a phased approach, as I said, so there will be people who might be thinking certain things around the category 3 buildings, for example, but that's still a way down the line. This is the work that's been ongoing throughout this process, and we will be doing everything that we can to make sure that the sector absolutely knows what their responsibilities are and what they can do with that.

Okay, we are going to have to move on, I'm afraid. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks ever so much for coming this morning, again. I just wanted to ask you some quick questions on fire risk assessments. Obviously, we have the British standard fire risk assessment, which is quite recent. I just want to get your views on that. Is that something you're looking to adopt with this, or are you thinking of going down your own route?

In terms of the British standard fire risk assessments, there are many British standards that are relevant to fire risk assessments and to project systems and constructions that the assessments should cover. I'm sure Steve knows these a lot more than I do. For instance, British standard BS 9792 covers fire risk assessment methodology; British standard PAS 9980 covers external cladding systems; and BS 5839 covers smoke alarms. There's another one for fire doors. So, we would expect any competent assessor to apply all of these in their work as appropriate. We will be publishing detailed guidance on the conduct of fire risk assessment, which will include full references to relevant British standards and other materials. So, there's no need for us to require use of specified British standards on the face of the Bill, it's just an aspect of being competent. I don't know if Steve wants to add more about the British standard—

I'm guessing, Mr James, that your question is about BS 9792, which is the new—. Yes, I would expect our guidance would signpost that quite extensively. From memory, I think BS 9792 does have some England-only content, and we clearly need to draft around that. But it is what it is; it is a prudent, good-practice methodology for fire risk assessors. Unless there's good reason for departing from it, I would say a competent assessor should not do that.

Has there been an assessment of the current assessor market, if that makes sense? We've heard from Lesley about a shortage of personnel being able to do this. One of the concerns that has been raised is that all this assessment has to be done within six months of certain aspects of the Bill coming into force. I just wanted to get an idea of whether or not the market could do that already. Or, are we making it a smaller talent pool by maybe not highlighting explicitly what we want from the assessors? In essence, we can't necessarily pull fire assessors from England, per se. Also, I was quite keen to know what the consequences would be if we can't get all those assessments done within the six months.

If I can just go a little bit off on a tangent, one of the concerns that I also have is, from the evidence sessions, we've heard especially from the fire and rescue services that it's a pretty poor standard of assessment that they deal with most of the time. I thought that was quite worrying, if the fire brigade are saying, 'Actually, the current standard is pretty poor.' I'd be keen to know your assessment of that, actually, the current situation, and how it can rise to the challenge, I suppose, of what you're setting out in the Bill. Especially about the consequences if it fails to.

Absolutely. Poor quality assessments are often the work of unqualified or inexperienced rogue assessors. We know they may be cheap, but their work will be potentially unsafe and very probably uninsured. The Bill outlaws this by requiring all fire risk assessors to be competent and by making it an offence to conduct an assessment or even to offer to do so when not competent.

When you say 'competent', can you outline what you mean by that? Because that's quite subjective.

I can come in there. The Bill just says

'having sufficient expertise or experience',

which doesn't take us much further, does it? What we aim to do in due course, and there are regulation-making powers in the Bill here, is to stipulate qualifications, membership of professional associations, corporate quality assurance schemes, that will in law then mean the person or the corporation is 'competent'. That is the subject of work across the UK that we're part of, because it needs to be a pan-UK framework. Assessors can and do travel around the UK. A lot of the qualification providers are in England, and that kind of thing. We need a sense of equivalence where, 'Is a Master's in fire engineering the same as being a member of the Institution of Fire Engineers?' So, all of this needs to be worked through. We're not ready to do it yet.

In the meantime, competent means what it means. Experience and expertise mean what they mean. There are existing schemes out there if a principal accountable person wants to check that their proposed fire risk assessor is who they say there are, verify their credentials, they can do that, through the Fire Sector Federation, which is a trade body, but there is certainly scope to make that simpler, to codify it, just as we have with gas fitters, for instance. If we want someone to service a boiler, they've got to be registered with the trade body. It's that sort of thing that we're aiming for. It will take us a while post Royal Assent, if we get there, to do that. But there are regulation-making powers in the Bill to do it.

And that's what we're working with at the moment. We're working with colleagues across the UK on that, because that would be a sensible way forward in the future as well.

So, with that six-month target, then, will there be any consequences, I suppose, for failing to meet that?

At the moment, many landlords in the social and private rented sector already use competent assessors, so that's a matter of course. But if there was clear evidence that the sector would be unable to meet the likely demand, then we would not bring the provision into force, but, as I said, for reasons we've already said, perhaps, today, we are confident this will not be the case.

Okay, Joel. Thank you very much. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. We have already discussed the costs of this Bill this morning, and the underestimated nature of it in the explanatory memorandum. You've mentioned that you'll be engaging further with local government in order to revise your cost modelling. I won't go after that too much, but you may be able to provide the committee with an update on that, with regard to any different costs or sums that you come up with as a result of those discussions. Could I ask, therefore, why the building safety authorities won't be able to aim to redeem all the costs in their fees policies?

Fees are, obviously, normally a feature of many regulatory regimes, including those operated by local authorities, although in Wales our landscape is quite different, because there are very few category 1 and category 2 buildings. Category 1 buildings are where most fees would be charged. There are 180 properties, so building safety authorities would have to charge very high fees in a relatively small number of buildings to recover their costs, so, clearly, that wouldn't be fair. Using registration as an example, if we were to set the fee at £251 per building, as it is in England, that will raise around £160,000 across five years.

Fees could be charged for other functions, as they are in England, but those functions are concentrated in category 1 buildings. So, full cost recovery would inevitably lead to higher costs falling to residents, and the regulations that would set the fees would be developed following engagement with key partners. The proposals will be consulted upon, including local authorities, industry and residents.

Therefore, it's simply because you don't want to put too many costs on tenants and leaseholders.

Yes.

Yes, okay. But, of course, you've already acknowledged this morning—moving on to a related subject—that the compliance costs are going to be far greater, in reality, than they are in the explanatory memorandum, because you don't include those additional measures that landlords will have to undertake in order to ensure that they do comply with the law as it currently stands, and then the changes that will come about. Therefore, there are additional costs that will fall on tenants and leaseholders—that's quite evident, I think. Would you agree with that?

We're very much keen to make sure we do all we can to protect residents from excessive costs as a result of the Bill. We've been clear that leaseholders should not have to pay to rectify in-built fire safety issues that are not of their making for all buildings 11m and over in height. There is a route to remediation for in-built fire safety defects for all buildings of 11m or over, and that extends to both internal and external fire safety issues. But I’ve been really clear, I think, that I don't think you can put a price on people feeling safe in their own home, and I don't think it's inevitable that tenants and leaseholders will be paying more for the safety of their building under the new regime. We’ve heard from some social landlords who have been doing some really good things, and how they're already operating within the spirit of the new arrangements. The Bill will ensure that any costs passed on to residents via service charges must comply with existing protections. The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1985 imposes requirements for what costs can be taken into account when determining the amount of service charge payable. So, these requirements are that the costs are reasonably incurred and the services are of a reasonable standard. These provisions will ensure that excessive costs are not permitted to be passed on to leaseholders.

What if that's not what's happening? What if the costs are passed on to leaseholders and tenants? Are there sufficient protections in this Bill? And will you consider if there's a need for a cap on the amount that leaseholders and tenants have to pay for protecting their homes? I think there is an example of that in the Building Safety Act 2022, which provides full protection to qualifying leaseholders from the costs of cladding and places a firm cap on what can be charged for non-cladding defects. Will you consider—? I don't think that there is such a cap in this legislation. Will you consider—because of all the evidence that we've heard about the impact of this Bill, not directly, perhaps, but the impact that there could be on the amount of rent that people will be paying—that a specific cap is set?

We're currently looking at how we can bolster leaseholder protections by requiring a landlord to consider other funding streams before passing on the cost via service charges for the costs of works to leaseholders. So, landlords would need to assess whether there are any other sources of funding, such as insurance, indemnities or claims against developers, before passing costs down to leaseholders. So, we are already looking at this. This is part of the work that's going on.

How will that be monitored?

That's some of the work that we're doing at the moment, making sure and looking to see how we can bolster those leaseholder protections. But, again, just in terms of affordability for residents, we know that the costs will be greatest in those category 1 buildings, but, in other categories of regulated buildings and HMOs, we estimate that the costs will be much lower, with the average annual cost in the range of £31 to £62 per flat or whole HMO.

Is that all right, Siân?

Yes.

Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary, we’re grateful for you remaining with us. Because of our delayed start, we haven't been able to get through all of our questions. If you could stay with us a little longer we’d be very grateful. Thank you very much. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. It was just a couple of questions, actually, that remain for me. Obviously, we have the Building Safety Act 2022 for England, and it makes explicit reference there to a golden thread for residents to have access to. But I know that you're proposing not to bring that in, and I just wanted to get some clarification as to why, really. It seems to be one of the major asks, when we have taken evidence from stakeholders. They’re keen to see that, and it makes sense to have it, really. So, I just wanted to get some idea as to why the Welsh Government are not going down that route.

Okay. So, we intend that regulations made under section 45 of the Bill will make accountable persons for a building responsible for keeping building information in the golden thread. That will ensure a consistent drafting style across all the provisions in the Bill relating to documentation. It doesn't take away from the importance of the golden thread. So, those regulations will provide us with the requirement for the continuous record of information that the Hackitt review said. We can also use those regulations to specify how that information must be kept up to date, and in what form it will be kept. So, the information that might be held in the golden thread will be technical information. It might change through time, it might be different in different categories of buildings, and that's why we believe it's appropriate to leave that to the regulations. But the approach we've taken is very similar to the Building Safety Act 2022, and the details for which information must be held in the golden thread in England are also set out in regulations, and not in an Act.

With that then, with the accountable persons and then a principal accountable person—I think that's the other name—can I just get some idea of what you think that person would look like, if that makes sense? Would it just be a person living in the building, or would it be a company employee? Would it be like a name over the door? How do you see that role operating? I'm quite keen—. Because one of the concerns I've raised in the past is, basically: how are you going to recruit them? How are they going to be properly trained? You mentioned there about that golden thread and how they would take on that responsibility, but the benefit of that golden thread in England is that it will always be there. But if an accountable person stands down or moves or quits their job or whatever, how do you ensure that information gets passed over—or passed on, I should say?

Thank you, Joel. I think there are some important questions there. Typically, we expect building owners and landlords, both social and private, to be identified as the accountable persons. In some buildings, where there are complex ownership models, it could be possible for others, such as freeholders or headleases, to be accountable depending on which entity in a chain of leases has the repairing obligation. So, it's about who is responsible for repairing the building.

The Hackitt review, as you know, recommended that there should be greater clarity about who's responsible for managing the safety of the buildings in occupation. So, if Audrey wants to come in with more detail on what that person would look like—.

Yes, certainly. You talked about how information would be transferred between accountable persons that stand down, or where ownership changes in a building. There are provisions within the Bill placing a duty on accountable persons to provide information and documents where there is a change. So, we have made provision for that.

In terms of awareness raising and training of these people, how much provision are you putting into that?

I think it's really important that accountable persons are supported. I've already indicated my intention to ensure there's comprehensive guidance available to accountable persons. The guidance will be developed to support principal accountable persons in understanding their responsibilities and duties. The guidance will also consider what more is needed by way of other types of support, such as targeted communications, promotional materials, any training programmes that might be developed in partnership with industry or sector bodies. The intention is for that support and guidance to be available in good time ahead of the regime coming into force, just to make sure that everybody who is responsible has that clear understanding of what they will need to do to meet their obligations.

I think we've had some offers of expertise from stakeholders. That will be explored, just to maximise the opportunity there and the positive impact of those training and support materials. So, we need to make sure that we do get that right.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Are you okay with that, Joel? Thank you very much. And Peter Fox.

Just a couple of final questions from residents. We've heard a lot about the need to update the fundamental terms in tenancy contracts to include responsibilities and rights, and the power of entry. Would you consider amending the Act to accommodate some of that?

I think there are already—. No, there are no plans to amend fundamental terms of occupation contracts under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 as a result of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. That's because section 61 of the Bill implies terms into all relevant leases, including occupation contracts, including the provision about complying with residents' duties, giving access. Comprehensive guidance will be provided for accountable persons and residents on how to comply with their duties. But I am happy to consider the views of this committee and Senedd and stakeholders on this.

Okay. We may make some concerns or views about that. Okay. Thanks. And, finally, another piece that came out quite strongly was the concern about the need to provide stacks of information to tenants, and, actually, will the tenants be able to understand what they're being given all the time. One suggestion is to amend the duty to provide information in section 65 and instead create a duty to make information available. Are you willing to consider that also?

I don't think we need to amend the duty. We can use regulations to set out what information must be available on request, and what information must be given to residents, and that is what we do intend to do. In our own research and engagement work, residents have told us the importance of receiving building safety information in order to feel safe in their home, that they want information to be proactively disclosed. Section 46 provides a power for Welsh Ministers to make regulations requiring an accountable person for a regulated building to give information or copies of particular documents to other persons, including residents. So, what information, how the information or copies of documents must be given, and the format in which they must be given, will be set out in regulation and will, of course, be subject to consultation. I think that is a really important aspect, isn't it, and how clear it is for residents to understand as well.

We've got to make sure that it's—. That we're not—

Overloading them.

Yes. We need to understand that this is information that tenants actually need and is relevant to them. If you're going to get a pile of information that keeps coming through, will it actually be taken notice of? Whereas there's a suggestion that making sure that you signpost people to find out where they could get the information might be a more sensible provision and probably easier. But I think that consultation with all those parties is fundamental.

Yes, and I've spoken—and I'm sure you have—with residents, tenants, already about some of the things that they would like to see, and how important it is that that's communicated to them in a very user-friendly way. I think sometimes the danger is that people don't really look at things unless they feel that it's an immediate issue for them, and the whole point of this is that we need to ensure that the information is given ahead of anything, isn't it? So, again, one of the examples about information that we hope to provide will be what residents should do in the event of a fire, how they can raise building safety complaints, the contact details for the principal accountable person and the information about residents' duties as well. But again, as I say, I think how we communicate that to people is important, and how we work with residents to make sure that is done in the right way, because I think that's absolutely crucial. What we don't want to be doing is just giving lots of information that nobody reads, in a very technical way. That's not going to help anybody, is it?

I've got a final small one. It's a very important one, actually, but I just wondered how your thinking has changed in terms of evacuation planning for disabled people since, perhaps, we've last spoken.

We, again, see this as an important area. The Bill does require an accountable person to take all reasonable steps to ensure residents can escape from the premises as quickly and safely as possible. That includes disabled residents. If necessary, we can make further provision about this matter in regulation and guidance. I think, again, it's really important that we work with disabled people and with organisations just to make sure that we get that right. We are also exploring the possibility of using data about vulnerable people that is already securely held to inform the response to an emergency and, where necessary, the rescue of people. So, that might well not need legislation, but we are very much keen to—

Have you engaged directly with disabled groups so far, to help evolve your thinking?

Absolutely. So, officials have already had discussions with disabled people, including with Disability Wales, about the changes and the challenges that they face in evacuating buildings, and the solutions they would like to see. There is, obviously, not a one-size-fits-all, but evacuation plans form part of these discussions. So, again, evidence this committee's heard on this I think demonstrates some of the complexity around it. Any potential solutions will properly need to be explored.

Thank you.

Okay, Peter, thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much, and thanks very much to your officials for coming in to give evidence to committee this morning. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. In terms of any further information that you provide to committee, Cabinet Secretary, we'd be grateful if that could be done as quickly as possible, given the time constraints involved with Stage 1 proceedings.

I understand that, and we'll get as much of that information as quickly as possible to you.

Thank you very much, and thanks for staying with committee beyond the scheduled time.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr.

I think I'm seeing you at your next meeting as well, aren't I?

Yes. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch.