Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. A welcome too to Joel James, who's returning to the committee in place of Laura Anne Jones. May I put on record our thanks as a committee to the work of Laura Anne Jones on this committee, as well as welcoming Joel back? Are there any declarations of interest from committee members for business today? There are not. This meeting will be televised as usual, broadcast live on Senedd.tv, and, as always, the meeting is bilingual with simultaneous translation available.

Our second item this morning is the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill, and an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, together with some of her officials. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary. Would your officials like to introduce themselves for the record, please?

Good morning, committee. Sarah Rhodes, deputy director of homes and people in the Welsh Government.

Bore da. Hannah Fisher, head of homelessness prevention legislation.

Bore da. Julie Stokes, Welsh Government legal.

Bore da, bawb. Perhaps I might begin with some initial questions. Firstly, in terms of context for the Bill, Cabinet Secretary, how will you give confidence to local authorities in Wales that they will have the resources that are necessary to make this Bill successful?

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. This Bill will transform our homelessness system here in Wales, and it's going to focus on that early intervention and prevention. We've not shied away at all from the significant practical and cultural change that this Bill requires. We've had our regulatory impact assessment, and that sets out the detailed comprehensive assessment of the cost of the Bill and that requirement for additional investment. So, we very much recognise the need for public services to be fairly funded and effectively and efficiently delivered, and we do recognise that that upfront investment is required. That will, though, result in a significant cost saving over time. So, I do very much understand the pressures that local authorities are under, and that's why I've proposed a phased approach to this implementation, but recognising that the reforms need to be funded sufficiently and sustainably, reflecting that true cost of delivery.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Is there anything else you could say in response to calls that we've heard as a committee for the Welsh Government to commit to fully funding the implementation of consequences of the Bill for those delivering services on an ongoing basis?

We have our strategic partnership agreement with local government, which says that where new responsibilities come with additional cost it may not always be about seeking that extra money, but about identifying funding that could be redirected from elsewhere to have that maximum impact, and, beyond that, any new responsibilities would be funded. Future budgets are obviously a matter for the next Government. As I said, there are upfront costs, but I think the actions that I've taken have laid a really strong foundation for the legislation to put that practice into motion.

You'll know that we've increased the housing support grant by over 60 per cent since 2019-20, and that now reaches £204 million in this financial year. We've already transferred £21.32 million of homelessness funding into the revenue support grant to give local authorities more flexibility to meet their needs, and that's something that we heard from local authorities about. That's over £240 million provided to homelessness services and prevention work in 2025-26. I think that's recognition, and I think it's significant, and just shows that we do understand the responsibilities and the cost to local authorities as well. But, as I said, this will, we believe, result in savings in the future.

Okay. Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Underlying all of the issues around homelessness and availability and allocation of social housing is housing supply, of course. I think we'd all agree that we need a step change in terms of the numbers of houses being built and the number of properties available in Wales for housing and rehousing. So, what can you tell us today, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of what Welsh Government will do differently in the future on housing supply, given that we absolutely need a step change?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I realise that this is absolutely an important part in the whole programme as well. I think it's crucial to understand the work that we have been doing and that has been going on to increase housing supply. We have record levels of investment, and that's over £2 billion in this Senedd term. So, that is significant investment, and that's including £466 million this year alone.

Again, we had the important work that Lee Waters led on the taskforce, which has given us a really good set of actions to deliver on to really push forward. We've got the taskforce implementation group—I'm always keen to find a more snappy title, because when you say the whole thing out loud, it takes half the meeting. But it has met. I chaired the first meeting of that in July, and that was to make sure that everybody around the table of that implementation group knew that there's a team Wales approach. This isn't something that just Government can do. We really need to garner that team Wales approach, and that's something that came through in the work of the taskforce as well, and that's been allocating some of those recommendations to others to lead on, who have that expertise. So, I think that's been really positive—to see the ambition and the appetite from wider partners as well. I also chaired the second meeting this week of that group, because I'm keen to see pace in that as much as possible.

We've also already made some progress via discussions with all local authorities across Wales on systems leadership, and, again, all health boards across Wales, just to look at improving the availability of land, and I'm really pleased to say that we've had really positive discussions with those.

We already have £9 million being invested into services provided by Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, Natural Resources Wales and Welsh Government's planning directorate. Obviously, that's led by my Cabinet colleague Rebecca Evans, and those new fee regulations are expected to come into force later, at the end of the year, and that's going to help generate some more revenue that will be reinvested into planning services. So, there's a whole package of things that we are doing, and those measures will help increase housing supply by improving the speed, consistency and capacity of the planning system.

But let me be clear again: we're going to leave no stone unturned in this. This is very much a focus not just within my portfolio, but across Government, and I'm determined to see the work that we can do in this housing supply area go as quickly as possible.

Okay. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Lee. Lee Waters.

Thanks. That's encouraging to hear, about the follow-up work. I just want to ask about joined-up policy here, because the other Bill we're considering and scrutinising you on is a building safety Bill, and we've heard evidence that there's a concern that that regime is going to reduce the amount of housing that could be suitable and available for social housing. So, here you have a Bill that is increasing the demand for social housing, and you're also simultaneously introducing a Bill that could be constraining the supply of social housing. So, in terms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the joined-up policy that we celebrate so much, I don't see much evidence of it in here. So, how are these two things being traded off? 

Yes, so I think it's—. I'll be back with a building safety Bill very shortly, won't I? That wasn't some of the evidence that we'd heard when we were developing the Bill, and we felt confident, with the building safety Bill, that we would be able to manage that. Obviously, I'll have that more detailed scrutiny with you and the committee, I think the week after next. And on this Bill, I think the key point for this Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill is that we can't keep doing what we're doing. We know that demand is there, literally, and it's not just in Wales. The demand for supply in housing is something that I think we're seeing across much of the world; certainly when I speak to counterparts in other parts of the world, whether that's Australia, Canada, other places, they're seeing that demand.

I think that we're doing so much in terms of investing in our social housing in Wales. As I've said, it's record levels of delivery, record levels of investment. And I think the aspect of this Bill that we're working hard on is to try to keep people in their homes. So, that prevention work actually keeps people at home rather than going into homelessness, and that is what we need to do, not just for monetary terms, but actually for those individuals who are facing that homelessness.

But I very much understand that supply is a real part of this, and that's why I see that we have to keep doing everything we can, particularly with our ambition with social housing, and other ways. I'm keen to look at innovative financing models within social housing; we are having discussions around that. But, for this Bill, this is a real step change, how we deal with this in Wales. But, at the moment, we can't keep doing what we're doing.

Okay. Could I ask you about timing, Cabinet Secretary? You mentioned that some of the provisions will be phased in. We did hear calls, as we took evidence, for greater clarity around timing and the implementation of the Bill's provisions. Is there anything more you could say today to committee, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of greater clarity on the timing?

Yes, I think throughout the development of the Bill—and I know the committee will know how long the development has taken, through the discussions and the White Paper, and, after the White Paper, the discussions that we've had with partners—. And I think it has become very clear that a phased approach is necessary to ensure that effective implementation, and to ensure that we take people and our delivery partners with us.

So, I’m keen to make sure we have and co-produce an implementation plan with local authorities and the wider public service. But it's likely that the implementation of the Bill will be grouped into those three main phases, each coming after a pre-implementation period. So, phase 1 I see as the prevention, support and allocations provisions being implemented, and that's really in order to address the pressure at the front and the back end of the system. And then phase 2 will see the implementation of the ‘ask and act’ part, and phase 3 will see the abolition of the tests.

So, I think that's something that we've had discussions with all, whether it's local authorities and wider public services and others, on, and I just think that the phasing is crucial just because, as I said, of the real step change that this is going to make in Wales. So, it's important that the Bill's delivered in a coherent and sequential way just to make sure that public bodies, in particular local authorities, are prepared for those changes and are in a state of readiness for that implementation.

Thank you. Lesley.

Yes, if you could just say, Cabinet Secretary, the timeline for that, please—the years for phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3.

Okay. So, I think—. I wonder if—. Sorry, Hannah might be able to know better than I the dates.

So, should Royal Assent take place in the first quarter of next year, we think there would be a 12-month pre-implementation period in which we would develop much of the training and guidance, work with local authorities to transition between the systems, and prepare them for the changes. Then we would bring in, as the Minister said, the following year—so, 2027-28—the changes around prevention, the changes around allocation and also some of the changes around multi-agency work—so, all of the things that the evidence shows actually help prevention and mean that we can prevent more cases of homelessness before they hit crisis happening around that time. We'd then work with the wider public service to ensure that they're trained around the 'ask and act' provisions, bringing those in the following year. And then our latest date for commencement around priority need and intentionality is 2031—2030-31, I should say.

Okay, Lesley. Thank you. Okay, and now Siân Gwenllian. Siân. 

Diolch, Siân, and, just to be clear, the 2031 date isn't about delaying things either; it's about doing it properly and recognising the need for that phased approach, as I said. But the dates are indicative. If we can do things quicker, we will do it, and I'm obviously keen if that is possible as well. So, 2030-31 is the latest date, but I think that just recognises the considerable amount of work in the whole that's going to need to take place. As you said, there is a lot of work to be done, not just in this area, but in others.

But, as I said, a lot of this is about changing culture, and I think this is one area where that has been clear. So, as you said, Siân, I think the case for abolishing priority need is well made, and I think that a number of local authorities are well on the way to removing the tests, and that is really pleasing. As the committee knows, the tests can exclude groups of people who require support, often single adults and those with complex needs. So, as I say, there is a real reason to remove it.

But I am cognisant of the current demands on local authorities. They are very much our key delivery partner, and I want to ensure that their experience is heard and that they have time to work towards completely removing priority need and intentionality. The system, again, is about adopting that cultural change prompted by the Bill. There's groundwork policy work going on that we have undertaken, but there are challenges that remain. Homelessness services are working under serious pressure.

So, we've got to manage the pace and scale of change, not just as part of the Bill implementation, but as we continue to recover from some of the impacts of the pandemic and the ongoing costs of living. But, as I said, if there is a way to move quicker on this, in conjunction with our discussions with local authorities and other partners, we will.

Diolch, Siân. The needs of care leavers are something that I personally feel committed to as well as in this post. I have given consideration to giving priority need to care leavers, and am happy to consider further throughout this scrutiny process. As you say, we do hold existing powers to change the regulations in relation to priority need, and we don't need primary legislation to do this. But there are a number of considerations to make before making such a change. So, the first is the likely implementation dates for the Bill, and, secondly, the effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions in the Bill around care leavers. So, the changes in the Bill are likely to have just much more widespread impact on care leavers than the changes to priority need. So, we are trying to keep care leavers out of the homelessness system completely. So, that's working in a much better way, to manage their transition to independent living and to ensure they are prioritised for social housing.

So, I think it's worth noting the changes that were made in 2022 under my predecessor Julie James. So, under those changes, it's very unlikely that any care leaver will not fall into another priority need group, particularly the newer group for people at risk of rough-sleeping. So, while I am really happy to consider this further, I think it does require some careful consideration.

Diolch, Siân. This, as you acknowledge, has been a very challenging policy area. I know that the committee has heard that there are strong opposing views about the role of the intentionality test. Just to be clear, the Welsh Government wants to create an inclusive homelessness service that's focused on prevention, meeting individual needs, and case co-ordination. So, our focus throughout the drafting of this Bill has been on how we can help people and not whether we can help people.

I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance, both between individual accountability, delivering a trauma-informed response and providing improved support and multi-agency practice to those who need it. But I'm sure you and others on the committee have heard, as I have, that some see it as a tool to manage behaviour. Others see it as an exclusionary lever, which disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable people. So, it's really clear to me that the intentionality test should not exist in a trauma-informed homelessness system. So, it's a test that, as I said, is applied inconsistently across Wales. Even in one conversation that I had with a number of local authorities, it became clear that, as I said, it is used in different ways. It can be used to be a gatekeeper for services, and that does penalise people whose behaviour is often shaped by trauma, or mental health issues, or, for example, substance misuse. So, I believe that the intentionality test doesn't help vulnerable people, and I think its ongoing presence undermines public service response, which is our intention in this Bill, to homelessness. So, again, I go back to that all services need to do their bit, and we need that wider public service response. So, I think that it's about supporting people rather than being an exclusionary mechanism.

Diolch, Siân. As I said, the Bill does strengthen duties to assess need, support tenancy sustainment and promote that multi-agency co-operation to ensure that applicants are supported earlier and supported well, which I think is to the point that you're saying.

We absolutely believe that there have to be red lines, particularly for the most serious behaviour, so we've brought in those tests for violence and serious property damage in order to ensure that local authorities are able to respond strongly to behaviour that places their staff and others at risk. Then, we have brought in that deliberate manipulation test, which will also disincentivise gaming systems to access social housing.

Look, it's a very delicate balance. You've taken evidence from some who say they want me to strengthen this and add to those tests, and some who say I should remove any repercussions for any types of behaviour as well. I think we've struck the right balance, but it is a really challenging area, and I would welcome the committee's views here.

Okay. I think the point is not being against the removal of intentionality, but thinking about, 'Is there anything else that could be put in place that would be useful for local authorities?', because what they say now is that the threat can help the situation. I think that's the point I was trying to make. Would you have a think about whether something else can be put in place here as well?

Thank you, Siân. I'm keen to hear the committee's views on that. Just in terms of the removal of intentionality, we have very much tried to keep that balance, because we do hear from local authorities and others around some of those issues. We're keen to hear from local authorities.

In terms of intentionality and deliberate manipulation, just to be clear, those two tests are different. The existing intentionality test and proposed deliberate manipulation test operate within different legislative systems. The effect and the impact of the tests are also very distinct.

The intentionality test determines entitlement to homelessness assistance, and the deliberate manipulation test relates to the allocation of social housing. It's aim is to prevent applicants from doing things or failing to do things for the purpose of improving the chances of being allocated to social housing. So, no test currently exists.

While some behaviours the test is developed to respond to may be similar to the ones provided for under the intentionality test, the tests do differ in approach, and they differ in severity of consequence. The deliberate manipulation test is narrower than the intentionality test in its application and effects. So, they are very different and do different things.

The main purpose, as I said, of the deliberate manipulation test is to disincentivise and prevent prospective applicants who, in those very rare circumstances, may risk their existing accommodation in order to access social housing. On those rare occasions, I think behaviour is unlikely to start out of the blue, and it will be important that the implications of such behaviour are discussed with applicants at an early stage to prevent that unnecessary homelessness and to ensure their understanding of the consequences of deliberately manipulating the housing system. Local authorities will have the discretion to use the test, the effect of which is to remove the priority awarded under the allocation framework to a person who is homeless or owed the prevention of final homelessness duties, while also ensuring they can access homelessness support where necessary. This means that they would be deprioritised for access to social housing, but able to access homelessness assistance, so ensuring that there is still a safety net for people. And I think that just, again, goes to our point around being a public service response to homelessness as well. I do think that we have, again, struck the right balance.

 Diolch, Siân. This is an important aspect as well. We considered the risk of misapplication of the provision to end duties carefully through the drafting process, and I think that's reflected in the careful wording of the provisions. So, duties can only be ended where there's no reasonable excuse for the actions taken by the applicant or member of their household, and that there are no special circumstances that would require the continuation of the duties. Those safeguards have been specifically inserted to just make sure that victims of interpersonal or familial violence, or those at risk of exploitation are not mistakenly affected. In cases of domestic abuse or cuckooing, action should be taken against the perpetrator and duties should not be ended. So, it's my expectation that other interventions and support services should be brought in by local authorities to support victims and survivors. I don't know, Hannah, if you wanted to add anything on the drafting.

We did really consider the needs of domestic abuse survivors and people at risk of exploitation in the drafting, and that is the reason that those provisions have been built into the Bill. We're working very closely with domestic abuse stakeholders and others as we develop the guidance to support this, and that will be explicit—that we are not looking for partners of violent people, their family members or parents of children with behavioural issues to be affected by this. This is about serious violence, and the guidance will be very clear about the potential pitfalls, how they should be avoided and which partners should be engaged when working with these families.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Siân. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. Looking at local connection, we heard some very varying views, but I think we heard some very strong support for some groups to be exempt, and that those exempt categories be placed on the face of the Bill, so veterans and care leavers, for example. Currently, the way the Bill is drafted, that's not the case. Would you consider amending it to include that, and maybe further down the line, if it became unrealistic, you would then be able to remove those exemptions?

Diolch, Lesley. So, there are two main risks that need to be managed in terms of the local connection. The first is the risk of overburdening local authorities, and the second is the risk of discrimination when proposing different treatment for certain groups. In terms of the risk of overburdening local authorities, I have listened very carefully to the feedback of local authorities throughout the development of the Bill. This is something that came through with officials' discussions with local authorities, I think came up in discussions through the White Paper previously as well, and then in my discussions with local authorities. And it's clear to me that local authorities already face challenges of cross-border working. So, they're understandably concerned about the potential for overburdening an already pressurised system. That is some serious feedback for me to take heed of there—leaving them at risk of being overburdened or undermining our wider policy intention by not addressing this risk. That's why the Bill ensures that the main housing duty is focused on people in Wales and in our communities.

While I do intend to look at making further exemptions in the future, I do recognise that there may be particular groups that can be disadvantaged by the concept of local connection. This has to be done in a managed way to manage the risk of potential discrimination. Any differential treatment for particular groups has to be justified with that robust evidence.

There is more work for us to do as the evidence has to be considered for all groups, not just certain groups. We have to look across the board. There is work to do there, but ensuring we get the balance right and managing all the risks is vital. The Bill gives us a mechanism to do that and we can consult and prepare regulations that the Senedd would be asked to approve before the requirements came into force.

There are things that we're doing for the groups that you've just mentioned as well. We've already briefly touched on care leavers and you just mentioned veterans, and maybe I could just say some of the things that we're doing around veterans as well. In Wales at the moment, veterans and armed service personnel can qualify for an allocation of social housing at any local authority to which they choose to apply, regardless of whether they have a local connection or not.

We do recognise that a lack of local connection can still lead to deprioritising of social housing, which can act as a barrier for veterans, and in terms of accessing suitable accommodation in a timely manner. So officials are currently considering plans to prevent local connection acting as a prioritisation mechanism for veterans applying for allocation of social housing using the existing powers. That will stop veterans being pushed down any list just because they don't have a local link.

There is work going on alongside this Bill to review the national housing pathway for ex-service personnel and seek ways to ensure that it's consistently applied across local authorities. I just want to give an example of where we are trying to—. We recognise some of those issues and we're trying to, in parallel, work there, but we feel that what we're proposing has that right balance.

Okay, thanks. The new local connection to Wales test—again, there was one witness specifically who failed to understand the rationale for having it, because she didn't think it would make any material difference, and it could exclude people with no local connection anywhere. Was that the intention?

No. In terms of that, there's no policy intention to exclude people with no local connection who are currently able to access services in Wales. I have had concerns raised by some regarding the impact of that new local connection test, in terms of those who may not have a local connection anywhere and who would currently be offered assistance under the main housing duty in Wales.

The circumstances in which a person may have a local connection to an area are unchanged in this Bill. They cover a wide range of circumstances, and that's linked to residency, employment, family associations and special circumstances connecting a person to an area. This ensures that local housing authorities have that flexibility to take into account particular circumstances that may be specific to individuals or their own area as needed.

So, I do hear those concerns. I know that you have heard those concerns as well, but I'm confident that we don't need to amend the Bill to respond specifically to that. The regulation-making powers give us the ability to add detail to the meaning of ‘local connection’ and to provide specific exemptions to the requirement to have a local connection to Wales in order to benefit from the main housing duty. Again, it's a very complicated area and it does have to be done really carefully. We need to ensure a consistent approach applies across Wales, for example for those who don't have a local connection anywhere—I think that's there.

Just to be clear as well, and I know the committee would be interested, if we encounter a situation such as the Ukraine war, the regulation powers in the Bill would enable us to ensure such groups can get help, for example by exempting them from a requirement to have a local connection. The same approach could potentially be taken for other specific groups who may be unable to demonstrate a local connection to anywhere. It is a really complicated area. I don't know if Hannah or Sarah want to add anything to that.

You've just mentioned individuals with no local connection. And again, we heard evidence from one person particularly who was concerned that people would be left drifting if they didn't have a local connection anywhere. Currently, if you haven't got a local connection wherever you apply, whichever local authority you apply to, they have that responsibility, don't they, for you. So, again, are you concerned that that is the case—that people with no connection would be just left drifting?

No, because local authorities would have that—. To find that local connection somewhere else, there would be time with the local authorities to work with people who are in that situation. But then, I think your experience would say that there would be a local connection, whether it's in Wales or outside of Wales, where that would happen. I don't know if Sarah wants to add.

Thanks, Minister. We are aware there are a small number of people who might fall into this category. But as the Cabinet Secretary outlined, the special circumstances aspect of the local connection element within the Bill provides that flexibility to enable local authorities to be able to support someone. And we also, with the regulation-making power, can carefully look at what might be some of these circumstances and how can we, if we need to, then specify within regulations. But we do need to do it really carefully, as the Cabinet Secretary says, because there's a real risk with local connection that if we don't look at the regulations really carefully, and be very specific in terms of their development and drafting, we inadvertently open up the system. So, it has to be managed very, very carefully.

Would you accept that what you describe is a weakening of the responsibility that local authorities have, compared to the current situation, where there's that duty, as I think Lesley described, if somebody without any connection to any local authority in Wales turns up at the local authority's door, then there is a responsibility on that particular local authority? So, what you describe, possibly dealing with matters through regulations or a local authority having the flexibility to house if they think fit, is that a weakening compared to what we currently have?

I wouldn't say it was a weakening. We can't keep the test as it is, so we're creating a distinct and unique homelessness service across Wales. As I outlined at the start, this is going to be a significant change for our services, and it has real benefits. I think we've got to be careful that we don't create any unintended consequences from making these changes. I think the Bill introduces that local connection test to determine entitlement to the main homelessness duty, to ensure that the main housing duty is focused on people in Wales and our communities. But I think that is something that, as Sarah outlined in your question and Lesley's question, affects a small number of people. But there will be that exemption that local authorities would be able to help, and we are talking about a small number of people.

I think it's worth adding as well that, obviously, Hannah talked earlier about the lead-in times for some aspects of the legislation. We're very cognisant of the fact that in switching on various aspects of the legislation, we also have to ensure for those different aspects that we have guidance or, in certain circumstances, regulations ready to go at the same time as well so that those provisions are supported with the necessary guidance or regulations. We're very cognisant of that and working through all of that, and this is probably an area where those regulations will need to be developed to come online at the same time as this provision comes online.

If we can look at the prevention and support aspects of the Bill now, the Audit Wales recent report found that local authorities are currently not using all the tools that they now have available in relation to prevention. Certainly, with my own council, I come across aspects of that, where they don't seem to be able to use what they've got to make sure people stay in their homes. You mentioned earlier in an answer, Jayne, that you'd been talking to one local authority and the tests were not being used the same. We've got 22 local authorities in Wales and a very inconsistent approach to such things. So, what work have you been doing with local authorities now to make sure that they use the tools they currently have ahead of this new legislation coming in?

I probably should be clear: there were three local authorities in the room, and they all told me different ways of how they were managing that particular test. One of the things I've been doing is going around Wales to have particular discussions with local housing cabinet leads and the directors, heads of service, all in the same room, on a regional basis, to discuss some of the really good practice in some areas. The intention is for us all to learn and for me to also help take that across Wales, at those regional ones, but for local authorities to see what their neighbours are doing as well. So, I very much take on board that point. And just to say, I do welcome the work of Audit Wales and their consideration of this. The aims of this Bill I think aligned very well with their recommendations.

I think the recently published annual homelessness statistics demonstrate that there is good practice in some areas, and that's having a real impact. Another example of a local authority—and they weren't at that other meeting—is Neath Port Talbot. They have actually reported a prevention rate now of 80 per cent. They've basically restructured their services in anticipation of this Bill, and I think they've shown that their changes to more preventative practice are really seeing that through. We know that that is a real shining light, and we need to get that good practice through as well.

We have organised some best practice events across Wales, where local authorities can share their experiences. We've had learning events, enabling local authorities to hear and see some of that innovative practice, just from further afield, such as the work that's going on in Manchester, and also the work that's going on in Scotland. That, I think, has been good, and that's something that officials have been leading, as well as the other areas that I've been involved with. The most recent event covered managing supply, fostering positive relationships, and they've had four workshops covering different aspects of prevention.

We've also got a rapid rehousing summit, to showcase some of those progressive approaches, later this month, so I'll be attending that. We've recently undertaken a deep-dive into rapid rehousing in Cardiff, Conwy and Rhondda Cynon Taf, to look at how data and information on diverse housing needs can accurately inform the delivery of housing supply. Those statistics and data are going to be shared at that rapid rehousing event. But perhaps officials want to just say a little bit more about how that work is going on with local authorities.

Absolutely. We've been engaged with local authorities for several years now, working on this Bill, and trying to get the balance right. We are certainly seeing, in the areas that are keen to adopt this practice earlier, that that is starting to show some results. The average prevention rate across Wales remains in the mid-50s, but in certain local authorities, we are seeing it hit 70, and, in one case, 80. We know that those are the local areas that have really placed a focused practice around prevention and sought to increase the work of their workers there. So, there's a lot for us to share, and we are sharing that. We meet with local authorities every six weeks to have these conversations and to share best practice, and we're really committed to working with them on the further development and implementation of this Bill.

We're currently consulting with them around how they would like the guidance to be formed and how they'd like to work with us to develop the training. We have an event in the planning around case co-ordination, and we're seeking to bring some national—I mean across the UK—models of case co-ordination to Wales, so that they can start to look at how that compares with what they've got, and, for those of them who don't have anything yet, whether they'd like to adopt some of those models, because those models are shown to be working. There's real interest in that, I would say, across Wales.

Manchester in particular has shown it's not innovative at all, and they wouldn't mind me saying that. They say themselves, 'This isn't innovative; it's just about doing things differently', around improving prevention and reducing reliance on temporary accommodation. We've worked really closely with them so that they can share their learning with local authorities, and we've been doing that over time. And, really, it's quite simple things like using your most experienced staff as troubleshooters, because there is churn in the workforce, as you will know. Often an inexperienced housing worker just might not have those levers or that experience to know what they can pull, what they can do, to really help this person in front of them, whereas a more experienced housing worker can look at a file and see something that an inexperienced one doesn't. So, those are the things we're really trying to encourage local authorities to taken on.

Many of them are moving to six-month prevention already. Many of them are adopting prevention support and accommodation plans already. We're already working with them to draft a template, so that we can have some consistent practice across Wales around what those PSAPs cover and how they can reflect the requirements of the legislation in practice.

Clearly, you're taking a very proactive role in this. Would you like to see local authorities themselves leading a bit more, rather than the Welsh Government having to do so much? 

I think this is the fact: building the sort of focus and the ambition of what we want to do, and trying to get that enthusiasm with local authorities, this is going—. You know, I've been very clear: this is what we want to see. We intend this to happen. Obviously, it's at the Senedd's will, but this is the way we see things. Things cannot stay the same. I think, in those discussions and our constant engagement with local authorities, it's hopefully changing that mindset. As you can see, some are, and I think that sends a really positive message to the rest of them, because when I'm sat in the room, if I was sat there as one local authority, I'd be looking at the other one thinking, 'Well, why are they doing that and getting up to 80 per cent, and we're still—?' There might be some reasons for that, but it's just keeping that competitive edge, maybe, with local authorities as well, because there are some great things going on in areas.

I mean, sharing best practice has always been an issue, I think, and I'd say we've got 22 local authorities sometimes doing things 22 different ways.

Yes. I think it's trying to find the—. I think, sometimes, we look a lot at the differences between areas, and actually, there's a lot of commonality. I think we need to get beyond that. That's not just in this area, but I do think this is an example of where we've got similar problems. You can't just try and say, 'Well, this one area and it's so different from the next one' or—. We have to get underneath this, and we should look at where we have things in common and learn from that area, rather than focusing on some very small differences.

Do you think the Bill as it's currently drafted provides applicants with the right to request a review of reasonable steps during the six-month prevention period? Do you think that should be more clear, because I think there are concerns that it's not as explicit as it should be?

The Bill provides applicants with that right to request review of the reasonable steps taken during that six-month period. Again, I'm keen to hear from committee on that. Again, the Bill introduces the prevention support accommodation plan—Hannah's already mentioned PSAP, so that is a 'PSAP'. We're all getting used to those. They do require that local housing authority to document their assessment of an applicant's case in a plan whenever it considers it owes a homelessness duty. So, again, the Bill does provide the applicant with a right to request a review—at any time while the plan's maintained—and that right of the review includes a review of the appropriateness of the steps to be taken by the authority during a six-month period. But, again, like I said, I'm keen to hear committee's response on that.

Okay. On the new duty on local authorities to help an applicant retain accommodation, obviously, in the White Paper it said 'a duty to provide support'. Why have you changed from 'provide support' to 'help'? Is it any practical difference or is it just language?

There's no practical difference between the duty and the proposed duty to support a person to retain accommodation proposed in the White Paper. The White Paper proposed a duty to provide such support in order to assist an applicant to retain accommodation, and the White Paper proposed that the duty should apply to an applicant who the local housing authority assesses as requiring support to retain their accommodation, rather than a universal duty, and placed an emphasis on multi-agency practice and the use of the duty to cooperate. I think the Bill does deliver on this, and that places a duty on the local authority to take reasonable steps to help the applicant retain their accommodation. So, there isn't any practical difference.

Okay. And, currently, you've got the 12-month limit on help to retain accommodation. Is that going to stay, or do you think it should not have a limit?

That's in line with our White Paper proposals, and the Bill now sets a general time frame from the duty to retain for 12 months, and that provides assistance to local authorities as they plan with their resources and creates a general end point for the duty. This does align with feedback that we had from stakeholders, particularly from registered social landlords, who are really clear that the duty's main effect should be to stabilise the transition into settled accommodation. They were very clear that the risk around retaining accommodation often emerges early and in the first few months of tenancy, and that's crucial in avoiding repeat homelessness. So, the 12-month time frame focuses resources where they are needed most. Sol, that's where we've responded.

But the Bill does provide for flexibility, and it sets out a range of specified circumstances in which a duty can come to an end, and it is also able to continue the duty beyond 12 months, if necessary. But, just to be clear, it isn't a universal duty. It applies only where the local authority considers that the applicant remains at risk of homelessness without further support. It doesn't exist to cover all forms of need, and will be supported by other long-term options, such as Housing First or supported accommodation, which might provide a more suitable pathway.

Okay, Lesley? Peter Fox.

Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. A couple of questions on accommodation, if I may, just to start. Witnesses have raised some concerns that the applicant consent may not be a sufficient safeguard when local authorities are discharging their duty on non-traditional housing options. You previously suggested some independent advice could be included in the guidance to add some additional assurance and safeguards for those individuals. I just wonder what consideration you've given to this or given to including it on the face of the Bill?

Diolch, Peter. Where the broader discharge options are offered, the Bill does provide a range of safeguards to ensure the offer is appropriate for the applicant. So, any home must be safe, suitable and available for at least 12 months, and the applicant must agree that the duty should end when accepting such offers of accommodation, having been informed of the potential consequence of doing so. But, crucially, the local housing authority must also check in with those providing these accommodation options after they move, to ensure the living arrangements are working well and to help them keep their home and avoid them returning to homelessness.

I think it's important to recognise that this additional flexibility is not built in to allow for lesser quality accommodation. It allows for access to accommodation that will be better suited to individuals' needs or, perhaps, circumstances. Section 60 of the current legislation sets out a duty to provide information, advice and assistance in accessing help when envisaging the need for signposting to independent legal and housing advice. The code of guidance already encourages local authorities to signpost applicants towards accessible, impartial advice, and the Welsh Government funds national advice services through the single advice fund and homelessness prevention grant.

I do hear the evidence that you've had to the committee, but I think, again, we have struck the right balance between the requirements on the face of the Bill and the role for guidance. I don’t know, Hannah, if you’d like to just add a little bit on the guidance.

Yes, sure. So, as the Cabinet Secretary says, there’s already clear guidance around signposting people to independent advice. We’re really happy to reflect on this following the committee’s recommendation, but I think the key point for us is that these are not lesser accommodation options. They may involve sharing with others, and, for those reasons, we’ve built in the additional safeguards, because I’m sure we’ve all lived with housemates in the past where we’ve had difficulties, and we want to acknowledge that by doing the follow-up work.

But, actually, signposting towards advice, or making people aware of advice probably applies across the cohort of people seeking homelessness services. So, we’ve taken that broader approach, so that that offer is made to everybody seeking homelessness services in Wales.

So, you think it’s clear enough— 

Yes. 

—what’s already laid out in the guidance. There’s no need for it to be on the face of the Bill.

No. 

But we need to make sure that those people are signposted to that guidance. So, that needs to be listened to at all times.

Yes, absolutely. 

Thanks for that. There are concerns also about the quality of temporary accommodation. Would you consider bringing forward the first review of temporary accommodation conditions, so that it takes place earlier than 2030?

So, in the Bill, we are committing to reviewing the condition and use of temporary accommodation across Wales every five years. So, the first report must be published no later than 31 December 2030, and that is a final date for completion. But it doesn't stop any report being undertaken at an earlier date. The reasoning behind that proposed timing is to allow us to take the learning and align some research models, if they're useful, with the full Welsh housing survey, which is going to be undertaken in 2027-28. I know the committee shares my view on the updated evidence base from the housing survey and that it is necessary, and the next survey, as you will know, will be more detailed than earlier surveys, and it's going to help us gather evidence that will better support affordable housing and homelessness policies. 

Officials will develop a detailed tender specification, so that a procurement exercise can be commenced by the end of 2025-26, and that will enable field work to be carried out in 2027-28. And the results, then, will be available from 2028-29, so there'll be more detailed findings from 2029-30. I know it does seem a long way off, but, as I said, there's no reason not to do some of that work, with other reports are happening. But, just in the context of the wider work that we have, which I've just outlined, I think there are some real potential learning opportunities that will help inform the ongoing review of temporary accommodation that the Bill provides for.

I think most local authorities will already have an understanding of what the quality of their temporary accommodation is.

Yes. 

Are they working with you? Couldn’t they actually make available their assessments, so that you can actually get a more holistic view of that temporary accommodation well in advance, so it helps you plan better as well?

Yes, I completely understand. As I said, that 2030 date is not just that. It’s sort of outlining what we’ve got planned. But, as you say, local authorities will know, and that’s something that will certainly feed into the work that is going on at the moment. But I’m keen to work with local authorities, just on those suitability proposals, using existing powers. So, I very much understand the work that’s going on, but working with local authorities, I think, will be important. Sarah, I think, can add a bit.

I do think it’s important to recognise that we do collect data from local authorities in terms of their use of temporary accommodation, and there are very high level types of accommodation that they use. But it would be a new data ask from them, and I think we’ve got to ensure that that ask is consistent, and be really clear, as the Cabinet Secretary says, on exactly what we want to know in terms of the condition of temporary accommodation, because that's going to be a detailed look at the types. So, it's really important for us to learn from the housing survey.

So, we might have 22 versions of what 'good'—. Okay.

Yes, and actually, then, we'd have to undo that and then go back out again. So, it's important that we get that consistency, do it right, learn from the housing survey as well, and understand what it is that's important to collect in terms of that information.

Yes, okay. Thanks. Moving on to partnership working, the 'ask and act' duty is a fundamental plank of this. I know that some witnesses have suggested that the current wording in that duty is not sufficiently clear that public bodies should be taking proactive steps to identify homelessness risk. Do you see a need to amend the Bill to clarify this and the specific steps that public bodies will be expected to take?

Thank you, Peter. I recognise that professionals engaged with an individual must be sufficiently equipped to identify signs of homelessness or risk of homelessness by the time of implementation, so there's certainly work for us to do. There's obviously a myriad of risk indicators that a professional should look out for, and also the types of settings in which 'ask and act' will be practiced will obviously vary very greatly. I don't believe it's appropriate to list a specific question or specific steps on the face of the Bill, just because it'll not fit the needs of all individuals, and I really don't want to create a tick-box exercise for homelessness. I don't think that that would lead to the effective person-centred response that I'm sure we all want to see. I think to help public bodies deliver 'ask and act', the duty has to be supported by detailed statutory guidance and a learning and development offer, and I'm very much of the view that those tools are more effective in setting out the detailed practical proposals needed to deliver 'ask and act'. I think that that's the way to go rather than putting that on the face of the Bill and those questions. 

Okay. Could you remind us why you believe that schools shouldn't be included in 'ask and act'? Perhaps you can remind us. Have you considered the role of local authorities or local education authorities in being able to contribute to 'ask and act'? Surely children will be clear identifiers of where there could be domestic abuse happening.

Absolutely, Peter, and I have considered adding the LEA to the list of bodies subject to 'ask and act', but I don't believe it's necessary nor that it would achieve the policy intention, and perhaps I can just outline why. So, local authorities already have duties under the Education Act 2002 to make arrangements to ensure that their education functions are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. So that's set out. Local authorities and other relevant bodies, including governing bodies, must have regard to any guidance issued by Welsh Ministers in deciding what arrangements they must make to comply with a duty. So, in my view, and I've had detailed discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, as I'm sure my predecessor did, and also education colleagues, this existing duty to promote the welfare of children covers the arrangements for children at risk of homelessness already.

So, given the breadth of the existing law, I'm keen not to duplicate that work and instead we could place our efforts into building on the good practice that I've seen for myself, and I'm sure all of you will have seen some really good practice in schools. So, that will amend the existing 'Keeping learners safe' guidance, or issuing additional guidance if necessary. I haven't ruled that out. But there is some excellent practice happening in school linked to community-focused work, family focus and safeguarding, and this provides, I believe, the right balance and the right basis for us to do so in our work. And I think that it brings us, the schools and the teachers and the education unions along with us in this area, because there is that work going on already. I don't want to give the impression that that doesn't actually happen already in schools, but we need to make sure that this—

No, no, I accept that there are robust safeguarding measures in schools. I can see that. So, are we confident then that, when their processes identify something, there's a time where they meet this legislation and then priority housing and things like that can be done? How are you creating that interface? 

Merge it. Yes, absolutely. Obviously, there is work going on as we speak. Hannah, do you want to talk about the discussions with colleagues in education?

Yes, of course. That is exactly where we need to do the work, really. We don't want to recreate that referral pathway, because it works, and it works well and teachers are extremely familiar with it. What we do want to do is to improve what happens at that bottom end, very much because homelessness is not necessarily a safeguarding issue, and we wouldn't want any family, any set of parents, to think that they'd somehow failed their children in becoming homeless, and we really want to manage how that safeguarding system is used. It could be better at that back end, and that's where we really want to concentrate our efforts to do the work. But the clear feedback from schools is that concentrating our efforts there and helping them to think about how they support the intake in their year groups as a whole is really important.

Schools are very worried, because their experience is that families feel exposed if they're the only people who are being asked about something, and they become very careful about what they share and they're less likely to ask for help. And schools' experience is that vulnerable families tend to only trust the school and be very wary of other parts of the public service. So, we don't want to lose that trust. We just want to make sure that schools have the relationship with their local housing authority to build on that trust. And there are, not a huge number, but a small number of schools doing incredible work where the council officers come and work in a school hall one afternoon a week and families come to the school and they feel safe to have the conversation there.

There are schools that are doing risk assessment work across a year group. So, everyone gets asked the same questions, but the school is able to then put those families on the right pathway to the right support without those families feeling like they're being exposed. And we think that's a strong argument. It's an argument that teachers are making to us, so that's where we want to concentrate our efforts. It's not to say it's all there, but I think we know the places where we need to do the work.

Thank you. That's important.

Peter, could I just bring Lee in at this stage?

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense, but I just want to test what appears to me, at face value, to be a slight contradiction in your approach, because we heard earlier in your approach to local government that there was good practice, but there was uneven practice, and the new systems that you're bringing in as part of the Bill will be a driver for having consistency and good practice implemented. That's your local government approach. Your education approach is not the same: it's saying, 'Yes there's good practice, but we're not going to introduce systems to drive consistency of reform.'

I think that's part of some of the discussions that we've had with the teachers, as well as, as Hannah has said, the schools. We've looked at different ways of how people respond and I think we've set out—and Hannah, I think, helped set out there—how we feel that what we have in place for the schools can actually work with that guidance, because I think that we have to listen to the people who will be implementing this. And I think the point that Hannah made around trust within schools and public services, and where young people will perhaps speak, and families don't feel like they can't speak, we already have that area of real trust, and I think we have to really listen to what they have said in that area. But Sarah, I can see, wants to come in so eagerly. 

I don't think that's what we're saying; I think what we're saying is that we've already got the legislative framework within education—we've got the hooks. So, we've got the hooks to statutory guidance already, and so there is an existing legislative framework that we can hook into. And as Hannah says, we don't want to duplicate—there's no point in duplicating where there are existing things. So, let's work with that framework that's already there and strengthen that, seek to strengthen that and seek to strengthen the practice as well. So, we've got all the framework; we need to work, as Hannah says, at that back end to make sure that homelessness risk and all those pathways and the referral routes are there, and they know the guidance is there to support schools in doing what many of them are already seeking to do.

I understand that, and I completely understand that the operating model within education is sensitive—those points are well made and taken—but there still does seem to be an inconsistency in approach, because you're relying on the spreading of good practice in one area when you accept the spreading of good practice has failed in another. If diffusion of innovation was that simple, we'd have done it; it's clearly not simple, and the Cabinet Secretary has given fresh examples today of local authorities having different interpretations of their duties. So, I understand you're trying bespoke approaches in different sectors; I understand that. But if it doesn't work in one, what makes you think it's going to work in another?

And it's a balance. I mean, we've got a balance of legislative leaders, statutory guidance, promoting best practice, and the emphasis is maybe slightly different in different sectors, recognising the differences in those sectors and also ensuring that we can take those professionals with us as well. Obviously, our key delivery partner here is local authorities, and they have the key statutory responsibilities in respect of homelessness. So, our emphasis in terms of local authorities is stronger in the legislative space because of that statutory framework. So, you know, absolutely take your point, there is a different emphasis, but I think we're using all the tools and the levers and just putting a different emphasis depending on the context of that individual sector.

Peter.

Yes, I get your point. I can see that perhaps as part of the family of local authorities, there is more uniformity in the provision of education because of the statutory regulations, where it's not subject to the vagaries of political direction so much as other parts of the organisation. I could perhaps see that.

It's clear that you've already been having some discussions with the Home Office, because I noted you said that local connection exemptions had been agreed. I wondered, perhaps, if there's anything more you can tell us about your discussions with the Home Office. Have you had discussions with them regarding perhaps extending the duty to the police?

Diolch, Peter. I'm in correspondence with Home Office Ministers, planning to meet them to discuss the potential role of the police. I don't want to prejudice the outcome of those discussions, because they are ongoing, but I'm very happy to continue to update the committee on those discussions when I'm able to do so.

And is there anything further you want to tell us around refugees and the Home Office asking them to adopt the duty?

Officials have been in contact with colleagues in the Home Office in relation to refugees during the development of the legislation. As you will know, asylum services are controlled by UK Government, and UK Government officials have been very clear from the beginning of our discussions that they're not in a position to support the inclusion of asylum services within 'ask and act'. And they are obviously not subject to a similar duty to refer in England.

Officials have been considering alternatives for non-legislative options, and we understand from official level discussions with the Home Office, the contract for asylum housing in the UK requires the provider to inform a local authority when it's ceasing support for any service user following a positive decision about their asylum application. So, what that means in practice is that local authorities are made aware of people who need support, which is what the duty to 'ask and act' seeks to achieve. So, in that way, we can see that it could deliver our policy objective through that alternative means, but obviously we're working in something that's not within our control.

Okay. Last from me, Chair: I know some local authorities have questioned what levers they have to encourage other public bodies other than registered social landlords to comply with requests for co-operation. Should the Bill allow cases involving other public bodies, not just RSLs, to be referred to Welsh Ministers if needed? At the moment, it's only RSLs.

Okay. The ministerial direction power in relation to the duty on RSLs to co-operate with local authorities when requested to provide accommodation does reflect the critical role of social landlords and what they have in delivering settled housing, and the need for a clear mechanism to resolve disputes where co-operation breaks down in that context. So, the wider duty to co-operate is about enabling joined-up support, for example, between housing teams, health services, social care—and that's best delivered through those local protocols, strategic planning and partnership agreements. But where serious concerns arise that can't be dealt with at a regional level, Welsh Ministers retain general powers of intervention under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and other relevant legislation, so those powers can be used where necessary. But our aim is to bring about a culture of that shared responsibility, and not top-down enforcement.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Peter. Thank you very much. Lee.

Thanks. I'm just going to ask about some specific groups that have come up in the evidence. We've already covered looked-after children, so I won't dwell on that. The issue of prison leavers—we've had some evidence that councils are still being presented with notice on the day, of prison leavers needing accommodation not going through the flagging process. We had some evidence from Clinks who said the issue of resettlement from Welsh prisons to England is an area where there is a gap, and, when you think of the prison in Wrexham in particular, where the majority of the prisoners will be relocating to England, there does seem to me a bit of a gap here between referring out of Wales into a different system, and I'm wondering what you're able to do to try and mitigate that.

Thank you, Lee, because I know this is an important area and something that the committee has historically been interested in as well. Homelessness on release from prison can lead to that cycle of reoffending and repeat presentation to homelessness services, and we know that that can cause a real, significant negative impact for individuals and wider communities. I just want to ensure that we provide people in prison with effective homelessness and housing advice, which really must begin when people go into prison and not in the weeks and days, sometimes, before they leave prison. So, pre-release planning is key in that homelessness system prevention, and that is something that we share with colleagues in HM Prison and Probation Service Wales and local authorities. So, we've been working closely with them and others to improve that pre-release planning to ensure continuity of support.

So, the Bill, as you'll know, strengthens duties to provide advice, co-ordinate services and prevent homelessness for people leaving custody, and it also clarifies the definition of homelessness for people in custody. But, as I say, I know this is an area of interest for the committee, so I'd be interested to hear any other things that the committee chooses to raise with us on this.

Sure. Well, I'm raising something with you now, which you haven't addressed there: the issue of referring out into England.

In terms of referring to England and the test, is that the test you mean through the local connection aspect?

No, not the local connection, but the duty to prevent homelessness.

Yes.

Perhaps one of your officials—

Yes, go on, Hannah. Hannah is probably best—.

I'm not sure; I'll try my best.

Well, we'll find out now. [Laughter.]

I'm being tested; this is fun. So, on 'ask and act', we're working to align 'ask and act' with the duty to refer in England. My understanding is that prisons in England are subject to that duty to refer—prisons in Wales will be subject to the duty to 'ask and act', and we are seeking to align those two duties so that the practice between those two and prisons is the same.

Moreover, what we have proposed in this Bill is that local connection referral, so that is where a person presents at the wrong local authority or a local authority becomes aware of a person who does not live in their LA and seeks to refer them to the LA that they think is their home authority. Under the current legislation, that happens quite far down in the system, at the point that relief duty is considered. We are proposing in this Bill that we bring that referral forward for prisoners. So, a prisoner alerts the local authority to which that person has a local connection at the point where they become subject to the prevention duty, which would be six months prior to their release point.

The aim of that is that the local authority from which the person should be getting help helps them from that stage. What tends to happen now is the LA of the prison becomes involved, they do some of the prevention work, often very limited and not as effective as it could be, and they make the referral later in the stage. As you say, too often, that is very close to the release point and that local authority can do very little, and it’s a real failing in the system. So, we hope that, in bringing that local connection referral forward—and we’re talking to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that so that we can do that to English authorities earlier as well—we’ll get the right local authority aware of the person much earlier, and they have that six-month period in which we hope, very much, to protect the accommodation that that person is in; if that can't be done, to prepare to relieve and ensure that they do not leave prison into homelessness, which we think is a real opportunity of this Bill and a real risk at the moment.

So, that's a neat theory, but in practice there are lots of areas where that can go wrong, aren't there? We've heard evidence about time served, for example, having an effect on the certainty of the release date, and we've also heard about variability within Wales amongst local authorities—heaven knows what the variability in England, where they're not subject to this duty, will be. So, we can anticipate that there are going to be significant implementation challenges here. I hear what you say, but, even with that, there are still going to be problems. So, knowing that, what more can we do to mitigate it?

We're working currently with HM Prison and Probation Service Wales, as our key link, and we're also working with the Ministry of Justice and the policy leads within MOJ as well. So, we have a post-custody accommodation working group, which is jointly chaired by myself and my equivalent in HMPPS in Wales. We're looking at what that implementation piece looks like, as well as how we can improve practice at the moment as well. So, there are two streams of work that we're looking at under that group.

So, when we're looking at the implementation plan, we, funnily enough, in the last meeting, have been talking about, ‘Okay, how do we ensure that cross-border working as well?’ and we need a specific stream of work looking at how do we improve that, both for people who were in Welsh prisons who are going back to England, but also we've got a lot of Welsh people in English prisons who need to come back to Wales as well. So, there's a learning and training piece as well around communication for the prison service in England as well as HMPPS in Wales. And we've been talking to HMPPS about how can they help us do that piece with the wider prison service, because we absolutely recognise that it's not just prisons in Wales.

For each strand of the public service for this legislation, there are discussions ongoing, implementation work in train. I would say, in respect of HMPPS, it's probably more progressed because we've got an established relationship with them and we've been working for some time to try and improve. We recognise all the issues that you flagged. We have seen some improvements. I think, for the standard determinate sentence 40, the early release scheme, some new processes were put in place in terms of data sharing and trying to improve the timeliness of that data sharing with local authorities—so, trying to take the learning from what was a very intense period of release and to put that into standard practice. We do recognise that we're not there yet and there is more work to be done, but there is work in train both in terms of the current operation and for the future for this legislation.

Given that, notoriously, this is on the jagged edge of devolution and is complex in any event, have you considered a formal review period to be able to periodically assess whether or not this is moving as fast in the way that you wanted?

We're looking more broadly in terms of the review and evaluation of the legislation, but—

This specifically, because we know this is going to be challenging. 

Yes, we can absolutely look at that.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. And then, secondly, to the point about the no recourse to public funds, which is those people, typically, going through the immigration system, where they're not able to be caught by the duties of the Act, but they do rely on public services, we had evidence that they're likely to be needing hospital care more, because they're not getting the preventative care that you would get in a housing situation. The evidence we heard was that there still would be an ability within this legislation to apply the duty to provide information, advice and assistance under the housing Act, which would not cut across the legislation on no recourse to public funds, but would provide practical help to try and, again, mitigate some of the worst aspects of that. Is that something that you're able to do?

As you said, this is, again, a difficult issue, and I am very concerned about the impact on people with no recourse to public funds, the evidence you've heard. Again, I think we've looked to see what we can do in this area. From the evidence that you've taken, it would be good to hear from the committee if there was anything else that you think that we could be doing, because we think we are doing a lot in this area. We, obviously, fund a number of organisations, and particularly ones that offer support including access to shelter, stability and legal advice for those who have fled war and persecution, and there are lots of other things that we are doing in terms of the prevention there.

So, would you be open to amending the Bill?

I think it would be good to see if there was anything else you think that we could be doing in this area. We think that, at the moment, we have this in a particularly balanced place, bearing in mind that immigration is a reserved matter. But we think that—

But housing is not, and you are able to—

I can give a list of the things that we are doing in terms of the support that we are giving to people through the organisations.

Sure. My specific question, Minister, is: the evidence we've had suggests either improving the guidance or amending the Bill to make it clear that, under the housing Act, you are able to provide information, advice and assistance, and to make it very clear that this is help that can be extended to people who otherwise would have no recourse to public funds—is that something you'd consider?

Always happy to consider that. Just to say, our guidance assists public sector and third sector organisations, and I know that the Bevan Foundation has produced policy guidance for local authorities as well. So, there is work at the moment going on as well, but, again, I'm very happy to consider.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Lee. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for coming in this morning. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions on the generalities of the allocations. Obviously, I'm new to the committee, so please bear with me, but I know previously the committee has taken evidence from housing associations about the duty that they have to rehouse homeless people if their local authority requests them to do so, and obviously it seems that they're happy to do that, providing that there's a similar duty on local authorities to share the needs of these individuals. I just wanted to get your ideas on that, because I was quite surprised that didn't happen already, because I thought that made sense, and just wanted to get your views, really.

Thank you, Joel, and welcome back to the committee. I think you'll be seeing a lot of me in the coming weeks, but good to see you.

I know that, just on the reciprocal duty on local authorities to share information—I think that's what you're talking about with the support needs—again, it's something that I've heard from stakeholders as well, and I know that this is something particularly around section 33, and the stakeholder group has raised this directly with officials. I have considered their suggestion carefully. I'm not inclined to support it as I'm not sure that it's workable or necessary.

So, on the necessity point, we are committed to improving, obviously, that co-operation between local authorities and social housing providers. Obviously, that is important, that all partners understand the types of support needed and they provide them with suitable accommodation to prevent that repeat cycle of homelessness, which is what we are intending to do. Several provisions in the Bill have been drafted with the aim of improving partnership working and that exchange of information. One of those is the prevention support accommodation plans, PSAPs, and the expanded co-operation duty and new case co-ordination function will provide practical models through which information can be shared in line with data protection.

Hannah, I don't know if there's anything on that specific drafting that you'd like to add.

Just to say that there's a full data protection impact assessment that sits alongside this Bill, and we worked quite closely with the Information Commissioner's Office to develop the proposals. I certainly wouldn't want to speak for them, but the understanding we formed as a policy team is that our policy aims and the provisions within this legislation, which have been considered by the ICO, mean they are very confident that we are able, within the confines of existing data protection legislation, to do the things we want to do. So, we can deliver 'ask and act', we can deliver case co-ordination, and the existing legislation allows that. Of course, there would need to be individual information-sharing protocols to cover things like the case co-ordination function and to cover the referral pathway for 'ask and act'. And we have built in the agreement of the person to that referral happening, because that's going to be very, very important. There are safeguarding rules if the provider thinks that they need to go further. So, we're quite confident that existing GDPR rules and other data protection and sharing information supports the policy aims of this Bill.

So, with that in mind, then, you wouldn't think there's a need to have data sharing provisions—I can't remember the word I'm looking for; I'll try and make up a word maybe—to actually be mentioned in the Bill specifically, to give that greater confidence to those partnerships? There wouldn't need for that to be—

No, I don't think that's something, but, sure, if people take that into consideration—. But, we feel—. Obviously, we're committed to improving that co-operation between local authorities and homelessness services and their partners, but it's important to be clear about the sharing of sensitive data around applicants. We have to be very mindful of that. Just to be clear, we will issue guidance and develop training to support appropriate data sharing arrangements, and I think that seems to be the best place for that.

Thank you. Our evidence has expressed surprise that the additional preference for homeless households hasn't been necessarily taken into account in terms of the allocation. And I think, from reading past papers, one local authority said there should be a greater statutory duty placed on them to actually prioritise those who are already in temporary accommodation or classed as homeless. I just wanted to get your views on that.

Thank you. On the White Paper consultation, and during that process, many stakeholders made a very strong case as to why giving additional preference to those owed a homelessness duty may have unintended consequences and drive perverse incentives into the system, and, in particular, in the local authority engagement, every authority actually warned against it in that consultation.

I do remain concerned that we ensure homeless households don't languish in temporary accommodation. I am of the view that we have made the right decision not to provide additional preference within the Bill. I think awarding additional preference to those in temporary accommodation could lead to the adverse effect of funnelling people into temporary accommodation who don't need to be there, in order to increase their priority for social housing. It also would negatively impact prevention efforts, and also the use of more effective short-term accommodation, such as staying with a family or friends for a short period of time. I think use of those accommodation types sometimes are actually better for an individual's welfare and well-being.

When designing the allocation scheme, local authorities must award reasonable preference to specific groups, but otherwise have that flexibility in designing and implementing allocation schemes that can respond to their local housing needs. Households who are homeless and in temporary accommodation already fall within the reasonable preference group, and they will be awarded relative prioritisation in the allocation scheme. So, rather than placing incentives in the system to draw people into temporary accommodation, I think we should really focus on moving people who are experiencing homelessness out of temporary accommodation into suitable homes as quickly as we can.

With that mention there about unintended consequences, obviously, the Bill says that allocations have to go through a common housing register. Could you see any unintended consequences there? I know a lot has been mentioned there about social landlords who say, 'Well you know, if this has come in, then it doesn't allow us to rent out maybe privately to them, or even look at, say, exchanges and transfers between accommodation.' I just wanted to get your views on that.

Just on the common housing register, in the drafting of section 160B, which I'm sure you've all got in front of you here, that could well be very broad, and I think that potentially captures accommodation types that are not ordinarily let via a common housing register. I just want to put this on your agenda. I've asked officials to consider whether an amendment to the current drafting would help meet our policy intention. I am minded to clarify that the common housing register will only apply to social housing and that would mean an immediate accommodation. Other forms of accommodation could be offered outside of the common housing register. I think that will build into the existing duty of co-operation under section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 and will apply to people owed a preference under a local housing authority allocation scheme. I think the potential amendment will ensure a common housing register addresses long-term social housing need while allowing for other types of housing tenures to operate outside its framework, and that would exclude transfers and mutual exchanges, which currently operate outside of and are not subject to the allocation rule. So, I have reflected on that part of the common housing register broadness. We will look at that aspect at amendment stage.

Thanks, Chair. I have other questions, but I'm conscious of the time.

That's fine, Joel. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you to your officials for coming in to give evidence today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Diolch. 

Item 3 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from items 4 and 8 of today's meeting. Is the committee content to do so? Committee is. We will move into private session.

Welcome back, everyone, to the Local Government and Housing Committee. We have our fifth item in front of us this afternoon, on building safety remediation, and we're very pleased to welcome the Welsh Cladiators here, who've been living these issues for quite some time. Perhaps I could ask you all just to introduce yourselves for the record very briefly, perhaps starting with Cara.  

Just a bit of context. I'm from Swansea but I'm also Australian and I had hoped to retire there, but I'm actually stuck under grey skies in Swansea because of this issue. 

Okay. Rob. 

Rob Nicholls, director with Altamar in Swansea. 

Mark Thomas from Celestia in Cardiff Bay. 

Peter Larwood from Victoria Wharf in Cardiff Bay. 

Marc Harries, Victoria Wharf. 

Okay. And joining us remotely, Geoff. 

Geoffrey Spight, also a director from Altamar in Swansea. 

Okay. I thank you all very much for joining us today. We'll shortly be joined by another committee member, Joel James. Would you like to begin, then, with a presentation to committee, or some opening remarks for committee?

I think, Chair, we did have a presentation but I think it didn't meet the broadcasting rules, so what we, with your permission, would prefer to do is lead with an opening statement from Cara, and then we're happy to take questions and give our thoughts, if that works for you. 

That's fine. Okay. Cara. 

Bore da. When I saw Grenfell Tower go up in flames eight years ago, I never realised that it would actually affect the trajectory of my life by not being able to sell. I'm okay at the moment, but I've had some mentally difficult days over the years dealing with this.

So, this is my story. I live alone in a studio flat in Swansea that I purchased off plan in 2007 for £130,000—just remember that figure—when I was a mature student at university. I'm now a pensioner, still living in a building full of young, transient and mostly international residents. I've never known any of my neighbours. The flat was meant to be completed in 2006, but the builders went bust, and I finally moved in the following year. My initial reaction was that the quality of the finish looked cheap. Then, the snags began to appear.

The balcony drained the wrong way, so water pooled below the decking. Doors wouldn't close. The water pressure was poor. The carpet had to be relaid, and the underlay was for laminate flooring, which meant that the carpet rode up when the flat got hot in the summer. Some electrical switches were 7 ft high. A landline couldn't be connected, as the internal cabling was wrongly installed. There was no shower screen for weeks. When the balcony was relaid, the builder spilt fibreglass over my carpet. Then the windows began to leak. They let in not just air, but the rain, which damaged the carpet and kitchen floor. I had towels beneath the faulty windows, which had been installed incorrectly by a company who had, of course, also gone bust. Arguments went on for months as to who would pay to replace them. When new windows were installed six months after moving in, some subsequently cracked.

The lift repeatedly broke down and was eventually out of action for six months. An engineer told me it was an office lift and not designed for a residential building. There were leaks from the roof, which have gone on for years throughout the building, including into my flat. The water heaters, which were too big for studio flats and expensive to run, hadn't been wired in correctly and frequently burst, causing floods on the floors below. This led to increases in our insurance premiums, which remain high—currently £130,000, the same as I paid for my flat—even after we were subsequently ordered by the management agents to remove the water heaters, at our expense. Not that we knew it then, but the fire doors had gaps around them. The fire alarm system needed to be replaced—again, at our expense. There were missing fire breaks in the ceilings and flammable high-pressure laminate cladding on the outside.

I abandoned my flat for the first winter, but received no compensation for being unable to live in it or rent it out for several months. The management agents were initially the lawyers for the developer. They were then replaced by a company that operated from the same building as the developer. It was clear whose interests they were working for. They were eventually fired a year ago, and things have since improved with a new management agent. Service charges leapt up, and as we've never had an annual general meeting, we've been unable to challenge decisions. Service charges for my studio flat were £670 per annum in 2007, and are now £2,750 per annum. We even pay £42,000 per annum for a live-in caretaker, who is paid minimum wage, who we never see. I've also never seen the developer, who is the landlord. What began as a nightmare ended up as a battle against the cowboys in the wild west.

I've tried several times to sell my property. Only four of the 30 flats have ever changed hands, at huge loss, in the last 18 years. Everyone is in negative equity, despite the massive increase in house prices during that period. By 2019, I had too many caring responsibilities for my mother in Southampton, so I moved back home, not realising that my flat would sit empty for two and a half years until my mum passed away. I paid service charges, of course, all that time. I had two offers to buy the flat during lockdown. One was a cash offer of £75,000, but I accepted an offer of £100,000 from a buyer who needed a mortgage, without knowing about the need for an EWS1 form. The buyer waited two years for the survey to take place, but eventually pulled out. My flat was then marketed with an auction guide price of £63,000, but, without the survey, nobody put in an offer. The survey happened three years after it became a requirement, and the building failed, though the cladding might not need to be removed. Thirty months later, there's been little progress, though we recently learned that the cladding will now have to be removed.

Last year, I turned down an offer of £30,000 from a landlord. I approached the developer, knowing he already owned several flats in the building, but was told that he wouldn't go over £40,000. The flat was valued with an auction guide price of £43,000. I then received a cash offer from a landlord of £55,000, which I accepted. But, in the end, I couldn't face a £75,000 loss, so I pulled out. This year, it was on the market for £70,000—an improvement. If I sold after paying the agent's fees, I'd have lost half of my initial investment. But, despite several viewings, no potential buyer would put in an offer without knowing the plan for remedial work.

Despite the loss of value, I've paid band D council tax for 18 years on a 45 sq m studio flat. I pay more than most family homes in Swansea, and I don't even get rubbish and recycling collections. We pay for this in our service charges. I've challenged the band D rate three times and always been rejected. Nobody should buy a property speculatively and expect huge gains. This has fuelled the housing crisis. But equally, nobody expects to lose their life savings through no fault of their own. This was my pension that I'll never get back.

The building industry needs to be held to account. Nobody has taken responsibility for the deaths of 72 people in Grenfell Tower through the use of dangerous materials, or also for the destruction of the lives of hundreds of thousands of flat owners whose homes can only be sold at great loss to wealthy cash buyers and landlords. The Government's decision to require external and intrusive surveys, the lenders refusing to lend without a clear remediation plan, and management agents' inability to obtain tenders for work because of delays, has strangled the market for flats. Meanwhile, the developers, many refusing to fix defects or contribute to remedial works, are allowed to continue building to satisfy the demand from buyers who need mortgages. Once fire safety work is completed, the market will be flooded with flats after years of owners being unable to sell, and this will lead to an oversupply and inevitably reduced values.

As leaseholders, we simply can't win or move forwards. We can't fight the greedy developers or challenge surveyors for delaying the progress of works. Our lives are derailed by corporate greed and bureaucracy, let down by the system, just like victims of the contaminated blood and post office scandals. For me, with no family, maybe the financial loss matters less. While I love my flat, I'm tired of the building issues and endless battles and delays. For the thousands of unheard people trapped in unsafe flats, paying extortionate service charges, unable to either start families or downsize as they age, many struggling with their mental health, others simply wanting to just move on, I'm asking on their behalf: please get this mess fixed, not over another five years, but right now.

I'd suggest starting with licensing builders. This unregulated and toxic industry has allowed developers to profit at the expense of home owners, who are left high and dry, trying to get substandard, shoddy and dangerous workmanship put right. Meanwhile, the cowboys are riding off into the distance, leaving a massive trail of destruction behind them. All of us here, along with thousands of leaseholders, are still desperate for your help. We want justice. Diolch.

Cara, thank you very much for so powerfully putting the human dimension to this story of Grenfell Tower, the terrible tragedy there, and the building safety issues that have arisen since, and the lack of progress over so many years for people such as yourselves in the positions that you find yourselves in. Obviously, we're here as a committee to scrutinise Welsh Government in terms of the situation in Wales. So, could we ask—not necessarily you, Cara, but any of Cladiators here with us today—to give us your up-to-date view of where Welsh Government is and where progress is in terms of the Welsh Government's building safety programme? I know that there's much you could say, but perhaps you could give us an up-to-date résumé of the current position.

I'm Peter Larwood and I'm happy to say rather bluntly, I suppose, that we've not really been supported at all in governmental strength or manner. If I say—and I was saying this to my colleagues earlier—if I say that the amount of money that's spent in different directions—be it the airport, be it the 20 mph, be it the Welsh language—there are numbers you can put to that. If I say to you, 'How much has the Welsh Government spent on where we are?' Think of it; zero. There's no money spent on supporting us in what we're doing. We, sitting along here, and Geoff down in Swansea as well, have had to fight every inch of the way to achieve what we've achieved. We've had to do the work. I retired—I'm 75 now—but for the past eight years, I have been banging my head against the wall, because that's all I seem to be doing. I was saying on the way over, I am now at the point where I'm so tired, so angry that we have to do it and no-one else helps us. We are alone. It's a tragic place to be. People's lives have been put on hold. I should have retired and enjoyed my retirement. Our lives have been put on hold for eight years.

My past occupation was the investigation of fraud and malpractice and theft. And frankly it's a real case to answer, as Cara said, with the builders and everyone that's attached to them. Work has started at Victoria Wharf—just. There are five people working on one building—five—to take the stuff off on the outside and put the new stuff back in. How long is that really going to take? There are two buildings that are now wrapped. The end date proposed in May was 2029. On the first building, they are already one year behind.

There was a pact that these builders signed up to; it's completely unenforceable. Welsh Government have taken no action at all in relation to that pact to hold people to account. An excuse is given, an excuse is accepted; end of.

In the meantime, we, in Victoria Wharf, have the fun of paying £13,000 a week in total for the estate, just for fire wardens and insurance costs. And my personal service charge is about £5,000 a year for a two-bedroomed apartment. We're being ripped off. There's no help. And yet we see money being spent elsewhere and supported by Welsh Government. We receive nothing.

It's a hard place to live. Not the physical presence of the properties, but it's a hard place to live for individuals. There are people that are stressed, there are people that are in a very bad place, financially and by well-being. And it's not understood. The impact is not understood. No matter, 'Oh, I understand, I know where you're coming from.' Unless you're living it, no-one knows.

In the buildings that are wrapped, the balconies are taken away from the buildings that are wrapped, so you can't go out on the balcony, and there's a bar put across your door so you can get a little bit of air into your flat; that's it. I was talking to someone yesterday and they said it is so claustrophobic. The building has a wrapping right the way around it and you can see a dim view. It means that when the people are on the balconies or working on the property as well, there's no privacy. There's noise, there's dust. We have to live with that. And those buildings are going to be wrapped—each building—for at least a year. No compensation. Our reward is the building being put right. That's the only reward—no compensation, nothing. And now, because of PRP and the Welsh Government doing the internal surveys of the buildings, we find that the work that was done on compartmentation in our buildings was not done correctly. None of the architraves have been taken off and checked by the people employed by the managing agent. The result is it's all got to be done internally again. So, we've spent, in Victoria Wharf—. Because we had to pay for it, because Taylor Wimpey said, 'Oh, it's not a build problem.' We spent our money in getting that put right, only to find out now that FirstPort employed a firm that didn't do a very good job, and, when PRP looked at it, you can quite clearly see a lot of the problems that are still there are build issues. There are no gaiters on downpipes—square holes with round pipes coming through them—no blockaging from the start.

And now we've also got an issue with the very first building, with the roof now being an issue, and it's leaking. It's not a Taylor Wimpey problem; it's a maintenance problem. It's not a fire safety issue, so, therefore, 'No, it doesn't matter.' I put it to you that, if it wasn't for Grenfell, which was tragic in itself, none of this would have come to light, and our leases insist that we have to pay to put everything else right: not the developer, not the freeholder—us leaseholders. So, we go back to this roof. The actual cost of repair is roughly £130,000: £3,000 per apartment in that block. We don't know yet if Taylor Wimpey are going to accept liability or not. So, that potential is there on that block and the remaining six blocks. That's unsustainable from the individual's point of view. It makes our homes worthless. We don't know when it's all going to be finished. We don't know what's going to come next. And Taylor Wimpey, in the meantime, can't even adhere to a schedule.

I say to you that if there are these building defects being found—not just in our block; I know that Mark's had them in his as well, as has Altamar—those builders took us for a ride. They didn't sell us something that was worth the money we paid for it in the first instance, and it certainly didn't give us what should have been on the tin. Far from it. There was criminality in that from the get-go. It was sheer 'money at any cost'.

If there's a defect in the building—and we came here to talk about fire safety—if there's a defect in the building that's quite significant, then how does that actually impact on the fire safety of the building? No-one asks that question. 'Oh, it's not part of the problem. No, we're only here to deal with fire safety. It's a roof problem—nothing to do with it.' That's not true. You start affecting the integrity of any building in any way and it mushrooms out into other problems, and that's exactly what we've found. Each building now that has been looked at has found other defects, substantial defects, costly defects, and the way that we are tied up in all of this is how much it can bounce back on us.

As I said, I've been fighting for eight years. I'm tired. I'm fed up. Broke, literally. And the likelihood is there's going to be a lot more bills coming my way for stuff that was nothing to do with me, nothing that should have been wrong in the first place. Where were building control? Oh, hang on. Taylor Wimpey were allowed to do the surveys themselves, because building control abdicated their responsibilities to the developer. The developer is suing the architects for £50 million. Well, hang on. They saw the drawings at the outset, and their guys inspected it all the way down the road. There's no comeback on the bad boys. The comeback is only on us, who are fighting for our lives every single day. You asked how it was. That's how it is. What have the Government done for us? Nothing. End of.

Okay, Peter. Thank you for that. Rob.

We can echo Peter's problems and concerns. The Welsh contract, the legal agreement, is very black and white. Unfortunately, the reality is totally different. You talk about fire protection, so let's talk about fire protection to the structural steel of our development. We had the fire-risk assessment carried out by Anstey Horne on behalf of the Welsh Government and Bellway. Our past history led us to have a completely separate survey carried out by our own expert, who has, basically, ripped apart the fire-risk assessment that was produced for the Welsh Government. It had so many omissions and whatever.

But, to go back to the structural steel, we also had a structural steel expert who was of the opinion that a lot of the steel work within the development is significantly corroded. Now, the argument, of course, on the builder's side, is 'How corroded is it?' and 'To what extent is it?' So, now we've got to have experts go back to carry out further investigations, to get into more apartments, to rip those apart, to try and identify what that problem is.

So, once they come to an agreement on the extent of the problem, you have to produce a remedy for it, and how much or what has to be done—bolts replaced, perhaps plates welded on, whatever. So, you have to get a program of works. And then, from the program of works, you have a timeline. But then you go back to, 'Why is it corroded?', and our experts feel that one of the major problems why the steel is corroding is because the roof was badly designed and wasn't constructed using the specified materials, as it should have. So, the responsibility then is all so blurred, and you're going back, historically, for many, many years. We've spent over £0.5 million having to replace the roof because of the defects and the leaks that were affecting the apartments below.

So, that is the complexity of what's going on and, as a result, we made a very early decision that dealing with Bellway, as a development, was beyond our ability as directors, so we employed a legal team to lead us in that, and, at the same time, that we would go down the route of a defective premises action, which is in place, ready to go at any time that we decide it's the right time. And the result of that is, when we told Bellway of what was happening there, it was only then that we started to see action from the builder. Within a week of them being advised that we were considering the claim, we had Bellway representatives visiting site, looking at what the problems were in regards to access, where they could put up their compound et cetera, et cetera. So, it's the threat of legal action that has actually got something happening with us. But that legal action is being funded by the leaseholders.

Now, I know the role, as you said, is to focus on the problems with the Welsh Government and the fire protection. But you have to bring in how it affects individuals, because it's all connected. Cara's talking about mental health et cetera, and the experience that we have is duplicated many, many times. Now, in my particular case, my mortgage came to an end in December 2023 and I had to redeem it. But, because I couldn't sell my flat, I couldn't redeem it. So, the agreement is that, every month, I have to ring my mortgage lender to get an extension of my mortgage. Now, I know anybody in their right mind, the business manager, is not going to repossess my flat when you have a flat that has Welsh Government remediation, where you don't know what work's going to be done, when it's going to be done, how long it's going to be done, and at the same time you have a defective premises action that's likely to be in place. So, the value of that flat is zero, with a £110,000 mortgage. Nobody in their right mind is going to say, 'Right, we can't redeem it, we're going to take it back.' But there's always that uncertainty in the back of your mind, 'What if, what if, what if?' Now, on the twenty-third of this month, I have to ring Santander up and say, 'This is the situation, which hasn't changed.' But, in fact, it has, because, whereas last month I told them that we had the remediation and we didn't know when it was starting and what was done, and we talked about the DPA, now I can tell them, 'On 9 September, we were issued with an enforcement notice by the local fire brigade.' Because, with all the surveys that were done, and I admit, even our experts missed the fact that—. When the property was built, it's their own, it's their input. Because of the defects, it becomes evacuation—everybody evacuates at the same time. So, we put fire alarms in, we put the sensors, the fire alarms, in the corridors. What nobody realised is that there's a specification that the 75 decibel has to be heard at the bed head. So, if you've got an alarm in the corridor, that has to go through the front door and through the bedroom door to wake up the person in bed so that they can evacuate. And it isn't in place. So, now we've got an enforcement notice that means—. And I'll give credit to Bellway, much as it hurts—and it does hurt—they have reacted very quickly to send a contractor in to do a report and to see how quickly they can get individual alarms into each apartment. But the amount of work that that involves, you can imagine. You've got to get into 158 flats. Work in the corridor is easy, but to get into the flats—. And, in addition, there's also work that has to be done because there was no fire alarm or fire sensors in the car park below. So, that's another thing. But what I'm trying to emphasise is that this has come out of the blue. It's something that nobody thought about, nobody expected.

And we've also been hit with another problem that's raised its head, which is how the surveys actually discovered some of the problems that are likely to occur in bathrooms. Because, in other developments, it's only when they've actually gone into the bathrooms and started removing panels and stripped them back that they've discovered there have been problems with the fire proofing, perhaps at the base, or through the soil stack, et cetera, et cetera. So, if that is the case with us—I'm sorry I'm going on, but I'm trying to explain this—we said to Bellway, or—. Bellway asked us for access to two flats to totally deconstruct and see the problems. So, we assumed that if they did have the two flats, that's when they'd discover it. We gave them two flats. Then, last month, we hadn't heard about it, so we said, 'Well, what's happening, we've got the two flats, when are you going to move in?' And we were told, 'Oh, well, we're not going to do that now, we're going to wait until the contract has been awarded and the contractors can go in and do this work and discover it.' So, if that contract isn't awarded for, say, six months, then how long before those contractors go in to deconstruct the flat to find out the problems and then come back and say, 'Well, we have got problems and this has to be done in all 158 flats'? So, how long is that going to take and extend the finishing date, et cetera?

And what really, really adds insult to injury is, in 2018, Bellway employed a company called Miller Knight to carry out fire remediation work, and part of that work was to go into two flats, deconstruct them, see exactly what the problems were, how long it would it take and how much it would cost, which they did. And then Bellway disappeared. They went offsite and never came back, and the first time that we started discussions with them was when the Welsh Government had this agreement and the liability period was extended to 30 years, not the six years that they were working on. 

Now, in January 2024, I wrote to Miller Knight—. Sorry, in December 2023, I wrote to Miller Knight asking for all the information they had on all of the fire remediation work that they had done. And they came back and said, 'We can't give it to you because Bellway are our employers. You need permission off Bellway.' So, in January, we wrote to Bellway and said, 'Will you please give permission?' We've approached Bellway. The Welsh Government, when Jo Larner was dealing with this in one of the meetings, numerous times approached Bellway about this, our solicitors have approached them, and every time we've been told, 'Oh, it's in hand, it's in hand, it's in hand.' We still don't have any permission to know what Miller Knight did in 2018, including those two flats. If we knew what had gone on with those two flats, we might know what problems there were in the bathrooms. We're just left with speculation and frustration. That's my little tuppence-worth, for what it's worth.

Thank you very much, Rob. I'm just conscious of time, because I think we've got about 10 minutes left, and I'm sure that committee members would want to ask you a few questions. Cara.

Can I just add another thing about the steel structure? In Southampton—this is only a local news story, I don't know why it's not a national news story—there was a retirement block in February where they were literally given a few hours' notice to evacuate because the building had been discovered to be structurally unsound. If there was a fire, the building was likely to collapse because the steel that had been used was the wrong sort of steel. This happened again in July with two more blocks. They were given about five days' notice to get out. The expectation is that those home owners are never going to get back into their flats. I don't even know whether they've been allowed to go in and retrieve personal effects. There is a possibility that those buildings will be demolished. They would have been built by the same developers that we're talking about here. As Peter said, Grenfell Tower revealed the fire safety issues, but there are structural issues throughout the whole of the UK that we're not aware of. This is going to be a massive scandal that is going to be bigger, I think, than the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals, and we're only just starting to see the effects, as we've heard here.

Chair, can I just summarise? Then we would like to take questions. I think that the conclusion for many of us who are dealing with this on a daily basis is that we've moved from an unresolved fire and cladding crisis to then a building safety crisis, and we now have a remediation crisis. Innocent citizens are being left negotiating highly complex contracts with a toxic industry that continues to show little good faith and operates at a snail's pace.

I think that that's one of the key things that we would like to get across: that the lack of priority and urgency is causing huge distress and concern. We know that this year is quite a momentous year for the Senedd in that many long-serving Members will retire. We wish them a happy and long retirement. But before we arrived today, we calculated our average age; it's 73. I've spent the last six years of my retirement, every day, battling with developers, managing agents, insurance companies, regulators, solicitors, lawyers. It's awful, as Peter outlined.

So, to answer your question at the outset of what's changed since we last appeared before this committee in March of, I think it was, 2023: very little. Arriving today, we thought, 'This feels like déjà vu, groundhog day', because nothing has changed. And there's a statement that says, 'Words are words, promises are promises and explanations are explanations, but the performance is the ultimate reality.' And the ultimate reality, at least in the private sector—because we have no idea what's happening in the social housing sector in Wales—is that, as of a month or two ago, only four buildings out of 161 had been remediated, and many of us fear that it's going to be 2030 before a lot of others are, and it might well go beyond then. That is the brutal reality of what we're facing.

Thanks very much for that, Mark. Could I just ask you what the current situation is regarding your relationship with the Welsh Government? I know that you've attended various meetings and there's a general group that I think you attend, don't you, but you've also had separate meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for housing. Presumably that's continuing, is it?

We have met the new housing Secretary twice. I think we met her first back in November, and I think we then met her in March—I'd have to check—where we relayed pretty much the same message that we have to you. After many years of lobbying, we had the first leaseholder and resident forum organised by the Welsh Government. I think that that took place on 29 July. We had some 50 participants. It's actually where we met Cara, and unfortunately, because of IT, she couldn't join that meeting, but there were many others who were there, who reflected on similar stories as Cara: confusion, no idea what's going on, escalating service charges, et cetera. We haven't had a second resident and leaseholder forum. As at the time of speaking today, I understand that one is planned for about 18 October. We think they should be held a lot more. 

But I think, unfortunately, and it's a sad thing to say—it's not a reflection on hard-working civil servants, because civil servants can only do what their political masters advise—I think a lot of us, and do correct me, colleagues, don't have much confidence in the Welsh Government's approach to this crisis. We feel that its light-touch, collaborative approach to developers has, frankly, failed miserably. Because words without consequences are just words. And what my colleagues will reiterate is that, for developers, there are no consequences to dragging their tails. And what we would like to see, and we've long argued for, is strong sanctions, tougher timelines imposed on developers. But we realise that, in the current real-world politic, we're in a 'Build, baby, build' boom, and perhaps we've also fallen victim to that. The Welsh Government have always been hospitable to us, they've listened to us, but we've also told the Minister that there's a difference between listening and hearing. And we think, sometimes, the Welsh Government hears us, but does it really listen?

I think that's a very good point. From our perspective, the developer contract, the pact, whatever it's called, is completely unfit for purpose. With our building, Taylor Wimpey—you may have heard of them; they're a FTSE 100 company—are a construction business and they published their own timeline for how long it would take them to do the work. They're one year behind their own schedule. So, what's the consequence to them at the moment? As we understand it, nothing. We've challenged this very hard with the Welsh Government. We've now been told that the Welsh Government needs to go away and take legal advice on whether there can be compensation paid to us for the £13,000 per week—the £750,000 per year—it costs us to insure that building and have a waking watch on site. That's £750,000 per year the leaseholders of Victoria Wharf pay, and Taylor Wimpey are one year behind their own schedule. The fact that the Welsh Government needs to go away and take legal advice on whether they can seek compensation means that there are no sanctions in that contract. If you did 101 negotiation, you have sanctions for poor performance and underperformance—there are none.

Can I second what Mark says there—

Should we maybe just take questions from the committee, because I think that's probably—?

Yes, we have such little time. Are there other committee members who would like to ask—? Peter.

Thanks for sharing this. It's the first time that I've actually listened to some of your stories directly. Thank you, Cara, for capturing it from a real human perspective. It's difficult for us to understand what you're going through, but I think you've described it really well and I wouldn't want to be in your position, so thank you for that. Obviously, we want to scrutinise the Government to see if we can actually improve some of the things that clearly aren't happening—we can try.

Just so that we can explore some of the issues more, so that we can get to some recommendations, I wanted to just pick up a couple of questions on the scope of the regime, because it currently creates three categories of buildings based on, I understand, height and number of storeys. Do you agree with having those three categories, and is the balance of duties across the categories right?

We'll come on to the Bill later in subsequent sessions, Peter.

Oh, we're going to do that later? Right.

Yes, it's better to keep the two things separate, I think, because one is obviously more specialised.

Yes. So, forget that for a moment, for a later date. I guess I know what it needs in some ways, namely strong sanctions to be put in place around developers and those time frames put in place so that they can't hide away, they can't just kick it into the long grass for another few years while you're suffering, picking up the tab. I'm still wrestling with understanding why it's going to take the Government so long to put those sanctions in place. Why is it taking so long to get the legal advice?

I think generally you'd say, wouldn't you, that one of the key differences in approach between the UK Government and the Welsh Government is that the Welsh Government has gone down a more informal route of wanting to build some sort of trust and relationship with developers and get an understanding that certain work would be carried out in a certain time frame, whereas in England, it's more legalistic and there's actual legal setting for the work.

The developers, Mr Chairman, have signed a pact saying that they will do the remedial work, and there are apparently, allegedly, enforcement pointers in that pact, but they're not utilised. If you tell someone a story that ‘I'll bop you on the nose’, but you never bop them on the nose, they know you're never going to do it, so you can get away with murder, and that's exactly what's happening with the developers.

Is that the legal point? Because as you say, if the Welsh Government have gone away to get legal advice, having—

No, I think, Chair, there are specific terms in the DBC, as the contract is called, the deed of bilateral contract, and within that, there are called the SRTs, which are self-remediation terms. It's important to understand that that contract is between the Welsh Government and the developer. The works contracts fall on the developments, but it's a Welsh Government contract with the developers. 

There is anecdotal evidence that developments have called upon the Welsh Government to enforce certain aspects of the SRTs, and they've been reluctant. There's a view that they kind of sit on the fence and say, ‘Well, no, keep talking. We think you're getting there.’ Whereas when we're living with it, we want to press the accelerator, and that's a key issue.

It's also why there's a formal request that we have put to the Minister. People are spending huge amounts of time, and in some cases money, negotiating these complex works contracts with developers. We cannot understand why it isn’t possible for the Welsh Government to deliver some template contracts that could be offered to developments that would save us having to reinvent the wheel each time.

Because what's happening is you have inexperienced managing agents, people like ourselves, trying to negotiate these contracts, and for developers, it's bread and butter; they do it all day. There are concerns that unsuspecting leaseholders might be subjected to unforeseen future liabilities or costs because of our lack of experience and knowledge. We think that's a role that the Welsh Government could cut off by issuing detailed contract templates.

As Peter often says, most developments are all reading the same book, but we're on different pages. But to get this work done, you all have to read the chapter called ‘Signing a Works Contract’, and at the moment, those contracts are taking months to sign. And unless they're signed, the developer cannot even come on site to start the work.

So there's a very specific request that we think the Welsh Government should be subjected to, and we've put that to the Minister. The Minister said that she's liaising with the English Government, because it's also an issue that has been raised by our fellow victims in England.

I'll give you an example of the problems we face. As Mark said, the agreement is between the Welsh Government and the developer, so when we had the enforcement notice on the ninth, Friday, the first thing I did was to forward it to the building safety department, saying, ‘Can you please inform Bellway and can you find out what they intend to do?’ And the response was, ‘Could you please forward it to Bellway and can you keep us advised of what they intend to do?’

Yes, because I think we were told by the previous Minister at one stage that there was an advantage in the Welsh Government dealing with the developers in as much as it wasn't left to individual leaseholders to take action. But from what you say, it's sometimes returned to the individual leaseholders.

Well, the progress meetings are once every three months.

Yes.

You know, a lot can happen in three months. On the other hand, nothing can happen in three months, and it takes you three months to find out that nothing's happened.

Our view is that, at Victoria Wharf, the developer has a contractor onsite, MLG. They are probably having weekly progress meetings to see what is or isn't happening, and then, three months later, Welsh Government have a meeting, if it happens. On the progress on our place, as I've said, we're a year behind schedule, which suggests to me that the oversight could be significantly improved.

And we're never quite sure—. We constantly hear, 'We've talked to the developers', but we're not quite sure at what level colleagues are talking to developers. This has become an industry within itself, and some of these organisations now have businesses totally devoted to dealing with remediation. I'm not sure if we're talking to the chief executives or some of the key board directors, but we would certainly think that that would be something that you as a committee might consider. I'm not aware that you have called in the chief executives or main board directors of the companies that we're talking about, to hold them to account, because there's a whole sub-mid level of executives that are dealing with this, who report to a higher level, we suspect. But, as I say, we really don't know who exactly the Welsh Government is talking to.

Yes, okay. We're almost at the end of the time allotted to this particular item. Is there anything else any of you would just like us to raise with Welsh Government or ask of Welsh Government, or anybody else that we might take matters up with?

I think you've seen the consensus of opinion across the desk here, really, about more direct contact, more forceful contact with developers, because from the point of view of us at Victoria Wharf, the building safety team were told that they were working onsite and the scaffolding was up, and I knew full well it wasn't, for example. They had a picture of scaffolding up at Victoria Wharf, which was there when they were doing some checking on the previous fire safety, which they took down. So, I went to the landing window, took the photo and sent it to the building safety team. 

It's about the truth, about who wants to tell the truth. We don't hear the truth, and the Welsh Government is not hearing the truth through the BST. That lack of responsibility, even today, from developers is there, full stop. There's no accountability, there's no responsibility, there's no care about us as individuals at all. They don't understand how we live. We try to explain to the Welsh Government about the impact upon ourselves. I think the last time the Minister said that she was concerned and might put in some mental health consultation if it was required, but we want more than that. It's that inactivity, that pact that's signed that is not enforced. It doesn't matter who takes legal responsibility or what needs to be checked, if you sign a document that says it will be done then put beginnings and starts, and if you fail, penalise. The only place you'll hurt these people is in the pocket.

I worked in construction for many years, and all the contracts I worked on had penalty clauses if you overran a programme. Whatever it was, £1,000 a week, £10,000 a week, it was considerable. For a short period of time, I was involved in a big tunnelling contract that involved critical path analysis of the work that was being done, so that there was no chance of overrunning the end date, or if it did overrun, you knew why it overran and it was a claim against the client, et cetera.

There is no penalty for these building companies. They just carry on strolling through life without any sort of worry about, 'If you don't get the remediation done on this particular development by the end of 2026, then we're going to have a penalty of x amount a month, or we won't be allowed to build any more houses until it's done.' There's no stick. There's no stick at all.

No. Peter.

Are there no sanctions on them at all at the moment, in any of the contracts that have been awarded? Or are they just going over the top of them?

There's a standard pact that's been signed by all developers with the Welsh Government that they will agree to remediate the developments. It doesn't put a time frame on it. It doesn't hold their feet to the fire, shall we say, and that's the issue.

About this thing about getting onsite, in 2023, I had a letter from Taylor Wimpey saying that development work was going to start in April of that year on my block, and that work would start officially once the scaffolding was up three months later in July. They never got the licence to get onto site until 2024, and that took the Welsh Government’s building safety team to drag the people here twice, with their lawyers—that’s Taylor Wimpey; E&M Ltd, the freeholders; and FirstPort—to get the agreement to get a licence for them to come onto the site. Yet in 2023 they told us they were going to be there. And that’s what happens. Because they can get away with it, they do get away with it, and that’s where the Welsh Government needs the sanctions—there’s got to be the stick. It’s a horrible thing to say, but that’s the reality.

Well, it’s an industry, as you know, that is very adversarial, and they appear to treat leaseholders like they do some subcontractors; they relish a battle, a holding out—that’s their day-to-day work. And that’s the problem. Without sanctions, penalty clause contracts—.

Just on a human level, just to give you my personal opinion, we’re the only ones paying to be in the game; everybody else is being paid. We pay to be in the game. And I would ask everybody from the developers’, agents’ and subcontractors' sides, how many of them lie awake at night, thinking about these problems. And I would politely suggest probably very, very few. Whereas, I think I speak for the five of us, that many of us have had many sleepless nights over these problems. And I echo Rob's point: I owe a mortgage company a load of money; my flat's worth nothing. I still owe them the money, but the flat's not worth anything.

And that's true of many people on developments, in reality.

Yes. Okay. Well, thank you all very much for coming in to committee today to talk about building safety remediation in Wales. We will, as is always the case, send you a transcript just to check for factual accuracy. And then, as a committee, we'll discuss where we go, how we go forward on these matters and what we might do, what we might take up with Welsh Government and others, and obviously, we'll get back to you to keep you informed.

We'll just now take a short five-minute break, and then we'll come back and hear from you on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. Thank you very much. 

Okay then, item 6 on our agenda today is a second evidence session with the Welsh Cladiators, this time on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill, which is obviously related to building safety remediation and the future in Wales, but obviously is a lot more specific than the general experience and concerns of the Welsh Cladiators. We do have a number of questions. Let me begin. First of all, do you have an overall view on whether this Bill is needed? Is it required in Wales?

There's no real protection at the moment, I suppose, in real terms, but it needs to be a robust Bill. And I think that's the issue that—

Definitely. 

—and also that it has to dovetail with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, so there's no conflict. 

Right. 

I think it's always been our stated position that anything that improves the fire safety and build quality of homes or developments is, essentially, a good thing. Again, we've said many times that when we discovered the faults in our homes, we didn't think it was possible to build that kind of rubbish, because we're only talking about the early 2000s, but it was. And you've heard earlier some of the defects, so there really is an issue that needs to be addressed. And, I think, with the current Government's push—we all know there's a desperate need for new homes—making sure that homes in the future are built far more rigorously and to a higher standard than what we've had in the past, and what we were subjected to, is essential to avoid another building safety crisis mark 2, quite frankly. 

In addition to that, and I know some of the questions are going to be asked later on, it's about the people involved, not just the organisations, and the proper qualifications. If you take fire safety, it's quite an important issue, yet ironically the fire safety engineers that inspected Victoria Wharf only had an accreditation, which you buy. So, you buy the accreditation; it doesn't say you're able to do the work properly. And, as we've now found, the person who did the work at Victoria Wharf, he lost his accreditation through fraudulent transaction—

Allegedly. 

—allegedly. So, you've got to have the robustness throughout in all the aspects. And if a person's got a task and they've got to oversee it, like building control, it is their task, they oversee it. They don't pass it on to someone else and then someone else wriggles off the hook, saying, 'Oh, no, well, it's their fault really.' Because that's the game that's played: ends against middles. And then you've got managing agents that clearly do not have the ability to understand what's going on. So, I know it's in here about what you want to look at, but it's about having the right people in the right places with the proper oversight. What is very apparent from the life that we've been leading for the past few years, which is not very pleasant, believe you me, is that there has been a complete lack of oversight. It's 'Sign a piece of paper'—end of. All of the fire risk assessments for 20 years are all supposedly okay, but they couldn't have been. So, who was doing that work? Who had the oversight? Unless you regulate all of the parts down the line, it ain't going to work.

I think this was a point that we wanted to make in our initial presentation, which may go a way for some—. It is quite fundamental to us as customers, at the end of the day, of this industry, and that is: if you look at the track record of this industry and what I would describe as the ecosphere, which are things like surveyors, managing agents and all of the associated stakeholders, which, no doubt, you've heard from and will hear from in future, it's an industry that has shown incredible capacity and capability to build incredibly shocking homes. That's its track record, there can be no denial. I don't want to deride every builder, because I'm sure there are good builders out there, but when you look at the crisis that we've just spent an hour or so talking about, that's a function of an entire industry and ecosphere, because even the surveyors have a responsibility for what has gone on.

I think that's important to bear in mind: the size of the challenge that awaits in future. It's not a procedural, 'Let's introduce some rules.' This is an industry, in my view, that requires transformational, cultural change, which may go beyond the specifics of doing proper legislation. It needs root-and-branch reform in how it operates. It is light years behind pharmaceutical, aeronautical and automotive. We all know what happens if a car company produces a car that can instantly explode or involuntarily explode—it is recalled, all others are recalled, and it is repaired. That is light years away from what we've just been discussing.

Absolutely, and I think Mark's point touched on aeronautical. When you look at what happened with Boeing when they were given the ability to sign their own homework, it didn't end well. This industry had the ability to sign its own homework, and it hasn't ended well.

I think the problem as well is that we identify them as house builders. Now, a house is very basic. Once you've set out the foundations—that's square and you've got it level—then everything after that is down to tradesmen. You know, the bricklayer has his courses that he maintains, you've got the carpenters doing their work et cetera, and the electricians—it's very basic and very straightforward. Unfortunately, too often, they get that wrong. But when you're talking about a development, a block of flats, then the complexity is far, far greater, because you're talking about structural safety and you're talking about the foundations needing to be much more substantial, especially if you've got undercrofts there. You're talking about structural steel, which has to be specialist; you're talking about the way that you run all of the plumbing, the water supply services and the drainage away. It's far, far more complex, and it really needs to be differentiated between the two. So, if you're talking about a new building regulation, then the concentration of what's involved with developments, as opposed to a straightforward housing site, needs to be taken into consideration.

Just one simple thing: as I said, in my experience in the past in construction, I always dealt with clerks of works who represented the client. So, if it was the German Government we were doing a contract for, the clerk of works on site had his office, he was there every day and he represented the German Government, and made sure that what they were paying for was delivered. When building Prince Philip Hospital or the maternity wing in Singleton, the clerks of works were there for the health authority. They checked from the very beginning in the foundations. They made sure that the reinforcement was right, and the concrete was tested so that it was up to strength. They had their own clerk of works for electrical and mechanical, and you didn't do anything until that clerk of works was satisfied and it was signed off. And then, at the very end, you went through it all again with the clerk of works, who'd done a snagging list, and what the client got was what he paid for. Now, in these developments, the builders built something that isn't fit for purpose because there wasn't a client, or he was the client, and there was nobody there to make sure that that quality control was in place. And I think that any future legislation really has to take something like that into account—the day-to-day control or the checking of what's happening.

And one other thing, while I've got the floor: the requirement to maintain documentation. Now, we needed desperately structural steel drawings for our development, and they don't exist. They don't exist anymore. The architect doesn't have them. The people who designed the steelwork went bankrupt. So, the receiver doesn't have them. The people who built the steelwork, who fabricated it, don't have them. The fire brigade don't have them. Building control don't have them. The National House Building Council don't have them. Nobody has them. So, that requirement now of 30 years needs to be prioritised with records of design drawings—not just steelwork, but everything, from start to finish.

I think we know that's something, the golden thread, that the Act is looking at, because that is essential. Because we all have nightmare stories of the inability of us to find any documentation, in some cases, related to the defects in our buildings. In fact, early on, back when my crisis started in 2019, we approached Cardiff Council and tried to find out how it was signed off, what was the documentation et cetera. We were advised very early on—I think I have a letter somewhere in my extensive files that said, incredibly, because we're talking about 2006 and 2007, when the building was developed, that there were no digital records relating to that period, and that there were also no members of staff who were now working in the planning department from that period. Personally, I always thought that architects had a duty to hold documentation for 10, 20, 30 years et cetera. So, that is something—. I can't profess to know the exact details of the Bill, but anything that rigorously drives a thread of correct library and data store of important documents is absolutely key, because you'll talk to many leaseholders who sometimes get rid of their managing agents, and the handover of paperwork is palpable. In one instance, they had one little A4 box, and these are large developments. So, we would wholeheartedly welcome any proposals to strengthen a repository of important key documentation.

That's very clear. Thank you very much. In terms of the decision by Welsh Government to include buildings under 18m, in contrast to the approach in England, do you think that makes sense for Wales, given that, obviously, it's very different in Wales in terms of how many high-rise buildings there are and the general built environment in Wales? 

The number in Wales is far less than in England, and I think that, on the basis of what we've experienced, and Cara has experienced, she is not in a high rise per se—. So, the answer is that there has to be legislation that accounts for all complex developments, as was being said earlier. A house is one thing, but when you build a block of flats, irrespective of the height, you have different services running through different apartments in different ways—be it fire, be it electrical or waste, or be it water. So, therefore, you have to have that structure in place, as much as fire safety, in-between apartments.

Again, I think our view is that any building should be built safe and secure from day one, regardless of its size and dimension. But I think, again, coming back to some of the points we made earlier, I'm sure you're very familiar with the fact that, in July 2023, the UK Government mandated that any buildings above 18m needed two evacuation staircases. I assume that you’re familiar with that. And just again to give you an insight in terms of the mentality of the ecosphere, there has been a recent example—I am just quoting it—in Penge, London, where an 18m building that was planned was reduced by 30 cm in order to avoid constructing a second staircase, and if you go online you will see it drew widespread criticism from the London Fire Brigade. I think, again, that’s why you need tough rules and sanctions, because, as you know more than me as policy makers, people will try to cut the rules and game the system, and that cannot be allowed when it comes to basic safety and security of buildings. So, I think it doesn't matter if you're building a four-bedroomed house or a 30-storey highscape—it needs to be built securely.

There's one other thought: a lot of developments have commercial units in the base. So, careful consideration should be given, perhaps, to what is allowed as a commercial unit. You don't want a chip shop on the ground floor of a 10-storey block of flats, although if you want to put in a coffee shop, then that would be acceptable, or if you've got a small grocer's, that would be acceptable. But there needs to be thought about that as well.

And I think we have to be concerned, do we not, about homes of multiple occupation. I've seen some that are just absolutely shocking, and you wonder what on earth is going on in terms of the construction of those.

Okay, thank you very much for that. I'll bring in other committee members, and, firstly, Peter.

Yes, thanks, Chair. In England the building safety regulator is required by legislation to convene a residents' panel and to consult with them on certain matters. The Welsh Government told us they intend to keep consulting with residents regularly, and we heard that you've had some sort of meeting, and they don't feel a statutory duty to consult is needed. What's your view on that? I think I'll probably get it.

[Inaudible.] You say 'some sort of meeting', and you've summed it up in your question, the challenge we face. Victoria Wharf has got 460-odd apartments, so potentially 460-odd leaseholders. You try organising 460 people to get together with one voice. It's very, very difficult. We are a highly fragmented group of people and we found each other almost by accident, just these five people sat here. So, I think that's very important.

Yes, I think we did have a number of specific inputs. One concern we had was the voice of residents, and, again, I think what we would say, based on our experience, is that the ecosphere that we're dealing with here lacks any rigorous standards or consistency of approach to communications. My colleagues will correct me, but many management agents, as I understand it, very rarely proactively go out and seek customer feedback, which is quite an easy thing to do today with digital software et cetera. And there's an argument for that, and one is that they know the answer. People are not enamoured with your service and your high charges. So, I think, by default, this is an industry that doesn't seek to actively engage with the customer, and I think in some instances it has a somewhat negative view towards the customer. I think you're probably all familiar with the scrutiny that FirstPort has been put under by the English Parliament, and I believe Cara's local MP—

Torsten Bell.

Yes, Torsten Bell. He recently organised a 50 or 60-strong meeting in Swansea on FirstPort, and they have been eviscerated in terms of their service levels and provisions and levels of transparency. I think it's important to understand that the managing agent's agenda often differs massively to the customer's. The default response of the managing agent, as my colleagues have already said, is to immediately charge anything back to the leaseholder. There is no requirement on them to save money, and if you ask a lot of leaseholders, ‘Do you know a good managing agent?’ they'll typically say, ‘Hmm’. And again, I don't want to disparage every management agent, but it's an industry that needs to face up to its reputational brand. But most leaseholders will say, 'No, not really, they're all pretty much as bad as each other.' So, anything that forces their hand in convening and engaging, I think is most welcome.

At the moment, consultation of residents is really conducted by good people like yourselves, really, to share the message. There's not much direct communication. Welsh Government don't feel like they're engaging with residents to help shape policy or legislation. So, your view is that they should be. 

Yes, because it's an industry that I think historically, pre Grenfell, took the view, 'Well, as long as the numbers all round out and people are not at the gates, then it's all right.' And what Grenfell did was lower the water out of the bath, and expose not just the fire safety, but a lot of governance issues. And one of those governance issues, which I think the Bill rightly tries to address, is people need to work harder at engaging the voice of residents.

But there's a problem in that, though, in real terms. Managing agents are employed by the freeholder, not us, so we have no voice, end of. Therefore, whatever money is wanted to be spent is at the behest of the freeholder, technically, and not ourselves. So, the freeholder doesn't pay for anything: we do. So, the decision about that, 'Let's sit down and talk and understand what's going on', is taken away from us.

It is. We've tried to change our managing agent. So, we achieved a simple majority of north of 50 per cent plus one, so the majority of leaseholders wished to change agent. We then found out, through legal advice to us, that there was something squirreled away in our lease that said we needed to achieve 75 per cent of leaseholders to change managing agent, which feels absolutely preposterous. Surely a simple majority of 50 per cent plus one gives you the right to change what you are doing. It certainly works in politics.

What's happened in our experience, though, was we did have 50 per cent and we did change our management company. We have our problems with the management company, we have our complaints, but I think on the whole, they work very well with us. So, we can't have any complaints there. But what happened was that Mainstay were the management agents originally when Bellway was building and for some time after, and then they were taken over by FirstPort. So, when we voted to get rid of FirstPort and we employed Rowland Jones, he's supposed to have a handover. All the documentation is supposed to be handed over, and FirstPort never did that.

And that's what I was saying about the documentation, because with all the arguments we've got about the roof, one of the things that came up in the report was the requirement for the maintenance and operational schedules—something like that—and we were accused of mislaying it, as though it was Altamar's fault that we'd just put it in a cupboard and forgotten about it, whereas it had never been handed over by FirstPort, along with a huge number of other documents and operating manuals. That's one of the problems that many developments face if they do manage to change their agents—it's the continuity, the golden thread of everything that's going on.

No golden thread. If you're coming down to how buildings are looked after, I used to work for a company that looked after the Ministry of Defence situation. And every building on the MOD actually has a schedule for every item of building work and maintenance—every aspect within that building. You go to FirstPort and say, 'Can you give me the maintenance schedule on my block?' There isn't one. Their policy is, when it breaks, we replace. There's no maintenance. There's a big argument about—I told you about the roof. The argument from Taylor Wimpey was it wasn't maintained properly. And then FirstPort were saying, 'Well, it wasn't built properly.' So, there's an argument now that's going on, and we have to wait in the middle until someone decides what happens.

The whole structure of the building industry is little silos, and when someone's in that silo, then that's it—'Boom, ain't my problem, it's that person's problem.' And that person turns around and says, 'No, it's yours.' You have to have that continuity in any Act to give protection. You have to say there's a responsibility and you have to almost determine it. And many managing agents are just that: they just manage a pot of money and spend it.

I think it's important. I don't know if you know about this, so please tell us to shut up, but, generally, there's a view that developers appoint the managing agent in the early years of a development—and this may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but there's an assertion that they do that—and then you keep the service charges low to bring people in, and then, boom, off you go. Leaseholders have no control over that. It's a bit like the lease; it is a creature of the developer. The leaseholder has no negotiating power in that deal. It's a one-sided deal. And the management agency has really come out of the estate agency business, which, I think, uniformly, doesn't enjoy a great brand reputation. One of the things that I like about the Bill is it is going after the accreditation and monitoring of professionals, because that's desperately required in the ecosphere.

There's a gentleman called Giles Grover, and I don't know if you know, but he heads the End Our Cladding Scandal group in England. He's quite high profile, and he was recently before a UK parliamentary committee, and he said, I quote, 'You can line 13 fire engineers up together in a room, and you'll get 13 different interpretations.' And I think we've all experienced that, and some of my colleagues have referenced it. It is an industry that is desperately calling out for tough accreditation consistency.

One of my concerns is—and, again, I might be wrong here on the detail—simply asking people to register is not a measure of competence or capability. So, I think we have registered building inspectors and registered building compliance CAs—I'm not sure of that acronym. But the issue for us is: how is that then inspected and measured? We're all for anything that elevates the quality and standards. But, again, it has to be policed without creating huge bureaucracy. But it is an industry that I think lacks a record of strong compliance.

I think you have to be very careful about the specification of the materials that are used, and the compliance with them. Because we were warned in a meeting last week that one of the things that we might experience, when work actually starts, is that we will specify that a certain material has to be used—say, a certain type of plywood on the roofing—and the contractor will come back and say, 'Well, I'm very sorry, but that's not obtainable at the moment. But we do have an alternative, which is just as good', which isn't just as good, and it's half the price, 'But if you want to avoid delay, then this is what you need to use.' So, you have to be very robust in the sort of specification.

And again, I keep referring back to my experience on construction, which was a long time ago, but I think it's still relevant today, in that you're dealing with a commercial animal who looks at a job and says, 'We can do this for x amount of money.' From day 1, they go in looking at, 'How can we come in under budget? What can we save?' And we used to joke that the very first person on site was a quantity surveyor, because he's parked outside and he's got a digger waiting to go into that field, but the gate is locked. Now, that gate might be locked for two hours. We're on stop. There's a claim. We're two hours in to the contract and we've started a claim already. And that is the mentality of the animal that you're dealing with. It's pounds, shillings and pence. You know, 'What can we save? What can we do here to cut this cost? What can we do to do that?' So, specification, accreditation, very robust; it has to be very robust.

Okay. Let me bring in Siân Gwenllian, the committee member who's with us remotely. Siân.

Diolch. We are very aware, Siân, not of the precise detail, but of the legislation about service charges, transparency, et cetera. Our own view, and my own experience, is that many of the things, again, in many businesses, would already be present, i.e. when you get a bill, you can clearly understand it, know what is being charged. That is not often the case with some of the inadequate software and systems that current managing agents operate. It's often quite difficult to get a handle. And then, as you rightly know, the legislation is proposing that that big amount is broken down so that people can see what's gone on security, fire safety, maintenance, et cetera, et cetera. So, we are, I think, fully supportive of that, and my colleagues will disagree or otherwise.

Your first point about financial burden is a point that we had in our original presentation, because as you well know, leaseholders and residents are already under the cosh. You heard Cara's incredible rise in the service charge—I made a note of it—from £670 in 2007, and she's now paying £2,750. So, this crisis has enacted a huge financial pressure. So, yes, we are concerned about possible costs that might be coming the way of leaseholders because of any changes that might result in the building safety Act. And as we've already said, the general default operating position of managing agents is to simply pass that on. So, there is a worry about that in terms of what might happen.

I would argue, around things like communications and resident engagement, those should be things that a high-quality managing agent should be looking to be doing anyway as part of its business offer. The same with having simple, transparent, traffic-light financial information. So, I suspect it's not going to go that way, and some of those costs will be passed on to us, and, yes, that is a concern.

Siân, can I give you an example, a very brief one, about utility prices? The price of power. So, price of power in a domestic market is regulated. You will have seen Martin Lewis, the money saving expert, there's a price cap. For commercial power, it's unregulated, so it's a little bit like the wild west. So, for the communal areas, you pay a commercial rate, not a domestic rate. I work in the power sector, and customers often tell me what they pay for power. At our properties at Victoria Wharf, we've been with the same power supplier for over eight years. I'd suggest to you that the electricity market is fairly cut-throat and competitive, but we've managed to maintain the same supplier for eight years, and I've stress-tested this. We are paying between 30 per cent and 40 per cent over the market rate. So, I've challenged this. I've gone through a complaints procedure to be told, 'That's our final decision.' I've then given them new evidence from their own broker who quoted me to a different development, where I also own property, at a better rate than we pay at Victoria Wharf. So, if you excuse the analogy, ladies, we've caught them with their trousers down, to which they've said, 'Nothing to see here'. I've been told to complain to the Property Ombudsman. If you don't know, the Property Ombudsman is the industry regulator. It's funded by the industry. Therefore, the biggest funder of the property ombudsman is our managing agent. If you excuse the analogy, turkeys don't often vote for Christmas. We've proved it, with evidence, and they've said, 'Not interested'.

The other point to bear in mind is that historically—that sounds a long time ago, but it’s in the recent past—the industry relies on the relative passivity of the leaseholder to get on and do what it wants to do. That changed with Grenfell, because everyone was saying, ‘Wow, why is my service charge—?’ But, for a long time, and this is so important to understand about the industry and the ecosphere, it sort of operated on the basis of, ‘Well, as long as you don't get too many complaints, it's okay—don't look too carefully, et cetera’.

But, of course, when you're being hit with ‘fire service’, you start to look at, ‘What's energy? What's window cleaning?’ The point I'd make is that very often, it's not necessarily the agenda of the managing agent. They'll tell you it is, but it takes effort to get value for money, and to dig in and to go and argue and find better electricity contracts. And that's why, again, the principles of the Bill around certification and toughening up transparency are so desperately needed.

Siân, just if I may say, I've made one or two challenges, shall we say, to our managing agents, so much so that I got an e-mail yesterday saying, ‘We're not going to answer your questions’. As a leaseholder, I'm entitled to know information. They don't want to answer the questions because I'm asking questions that are awkward. It's asking about money—our money that they're spending. Some of it's small, some of it's big. But when they decide they don't want to, then the next thing is we have to go down the section 22 route to try to get it through the legal process, and they don't answer that either.

So, unless you toughen up on the managing agents, and unless you make them professional in a proper manner, so that they understand, actually, how buildings work and what leaseholders' demands are—. I'd invite you into my block of flats. I sent an e-mail around to our development manager saying, ‘Oh, you took some noticeboards down some time ago and you managed to put some new noticeboards up’. In fact, they took the residents' noticeboard down and replaced it with their own, so we couldn't communicate in that manner, and they left the holes in the wall—didn't fill them.

There are pictures I sent to the manager, saying, ‘Well, why haven't you filled the holes in the wall? Why are the rawl plugs and that still in there around the one that you've put up?’—'Oh, well, we'll do that when we redecorate’. So, I said to him, ‘Would you leave your home like that?’ They put in new fire panels, whether we needed them or not, who knows? I don't know. They’re a couple of thousand pounds a block—£5,000 pounds a block, I think it was. You can buy the panels for 500 quid. They didn't redecorate around the panels, so you have this white plaster around a beige wall—around the panel. ‘Oh, well, they're not painters and decorators’. Well, what's going on?

I walked around the development the other day and I took pictures of the walls—the external walls—and there are cracks in them. There are gaps in the walls. An e-mail I got back yesterday says, ‘Oh, they weren't subsiding in 2020’. That's the sort of attitude—that's how leaseholders are treated by management companies. That’s going to take a significant change. Any legislation to change anything at all about a managing agent is going to be a real uphill struggle, and you’re going to be listening to them saying what a great job they're doing.

I'd just remind you of Cara's earlier story. She pays £42,000 for a live-in caretaker on minimum wage, and they never see the caretaker. Again, it's just, ‘So, where's the rest of it going?’

Chair, I'm conscious of time, and we did have an input on the Welsh local authority responsibility. I don’t know whether that’s a question—. I'm conscious of time.

Yes, sure—yes, please.

As we understand it, we're differing in Wales to the UK, in that the building safety regulator will be the local authority, if I'm right—it may have shifted. We've already, I think, previously talked—. You're probably familiar that in August 2023, there was an Audit Wales report. The title was, ''Cracks in the Foundations'—Building Safety in Wales', and it was highly critical of the capability and capacity of the Welsh building control ecosphere to deal with the pressures currently being put on it. One thing that struck us very strongly, when we initially read the report, is a statement in it where such was its concern, it said that there was a worry that the impact of Grenfell might actually be waning, which was a shocking report. 

We worry, as that ecosphere is already hugely cash-strapped and also severely disabled by a lack of capability and credibility, how 22 local authorities will be able to take on the increased responsibilities of the proposed Bill. I know some people have expressed issues that that could lead to fragmentation and lacking in co-ordination. I understand there may also be concerns that, of course, in Wales, local authorities are also very big landlords as well. So, is there potentially a conflict between operating in a landlord capacity and also a regulator capacity? Is there a moral hazard there? The same report, if I quote from Audit Wales, says:

'We found there are a wide range of problems facing the building control and building safety profession, including significant staffing challenges with an ageing workforce and poor succession planning. The lack of investment in training and development means services are not resilient or fit for the future, raising concerns that local authorities will struggle to successfully deliver their responsibilities.'

'We have particular concerns over the financial management of building control, with some authority current practices potentially being unlawful, because they do not operate in line with the regulations and guidance.'

'The absence of a national framework for monitoring and evaluating building control and safety means that local authorities and partners are not working to agreed outcome measures and targets. This weakens security of services and does not help mitigate against risk.'

That was 2023, and we would raise concerns about the ability of Welsh local authorities, although, with due respect, it's probably going to be centred around Swansea and Cardiff, who are the epicentres of the current crisis, but also, of course, people will be competing with salaries in England, and I suspect further afield, like cities like Dubai, where we know a lot of fire engineers have gone to. 

I think that is a concern, because, at the end of the day, our entire crisis was caused by people who you expected to say, 'Hey, that's not correct. You need to stop working.' That never happened. For too long, developers have been allowed to mark their own homework, and we think we need to return to a regime of strong independent inspection.

Just very quickly, NHBC is supposed to have oversight over a lot of stuff, and, clearly, they didn't. And that's a regulatory authority. So, you start saying, 'Well, where did this go wrong?' It went wrong all the way through in the past, and it can't go wrong in the future.

Okay. Thank you all very much, again, for giving evidence to committee today on the building safety Bill. Again, you will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Thank you all very much indeed for coming into committee. 

Our next item is papers to note. We have papers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in your papers. Is committee content to note those papers? Thank you very much. I see that you are. We will move into private session. Thank you.