Local Government and Housing Committee

The first group of amendments, group 1, relates to amendments to key terms. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 83.

I move amendment 83 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Before I set out my amendments, I'd just like to place on record my thanks to this committee, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Finance Committee for their work during Stage 1. I'd also like to express my thanks to Siân Gwenllian, Joel James, Lee Waters and Rhys ab Owen for consideration of the Bill and their proposed amendments.

As we will discuss today, on many parts of the Bill, we do agree in principle. Our views may differ on certain points, but I believe our aims are aligned, and I look forward to constructive discussion today and throughout the further stages of this Bill. I'm also grateful to partners for their ongoing engagement with us on the aims of the Bill, and their enthusiastic and pragmatic approach to these amending stages. I remain committed to ongoing work with my colleagues here in the Senedd and with our wider partners as we refine this much-needed Bill to ensure that the people of Wales are safe in their homes.

Moving on to the amendments in this group, these amendments all relate to the key terms in the Bill and are critical to ensuring the regime can operate as intended. Amendment 83 amends section 5 to place a duty on the Welsh Ministers to consult each building safety authority, each fire safety authority, and such other persons as they consider appropriate, before making regulation about the meaning of 'residential unit'. This amendment is in response to recommendation 4 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report to place a duty on the Welsh Government to consult relevant stakeholders, including residents, during the development of the regulations on residential units.

Amendment 85 makes provision for scenarios where more than one person meets the definition of 'accountable person', either because they jointly hold a legal estate in possession in, or have a joint repairing obligation in relation to, the same common part. The amendment ensures that, for the purposes of certain provisions, they are treated as one accountable person. This ensures that all of them are liable for complying with the relevant duties under the Bill, rather than only one of them being identified as the principal accountable person under section 9, or the accountable person for a particular part under section 11(1)(c). Joint ownership arrangements are not unusual, particularly in buildings at the smaller end of the spectrum. Without this amendment, the regime could incorrectly identify only one individual as an accountable person, leaving others not capable of being held to account.

The purpose of amendment 2 is to more closely align the definition of 'common parts' with how fixtures are generally held under property law, i.e. they form part of the structure in which they are installed. The definition of 'common parts' provided by section 12 is a key term. Amongst other things, it ensures that accountable persons are identified by reference to holding either a legal estate in possession, or having a relevant repairing obligation, in relation to the common parts of a building. It's therefore important that we get the definition right. The effect of the amendment is that fixtures and installations would fall under section 12(2)(a), rather than under section 12(2)(b).

Turning next to amendment 88, this amendment limits the power in section 16 so that it applies to fewer sections than in the Bill as introduced. This is in response to recommendation 7 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report. I’ve given detailed consideration to this, and the committee will be aware that the power in section 16 is proposed to enable amendments to be made to the key terms sections, and is not about changing the duties under the Bill. This is a very important power, which ensures that, for example, if issues arise during implementation or in the future—with new building designs, for example—amendments can be made to ensure the Bill works as intended. I accept that, as introduced, the power is broad. The amendment I am bringing forward will limit the power in section 16 to far fewer sections. In respect of sections 2, 3 and 6 and Schedule 1, the power could only be used for the limited purposes specified in section 16. The power will no longer apply to sections 5, 10, 11 or 14.

As I've previously explained to the LJC committee, I am cautious about eroding the power to the full extent proposed by recommendation 7 of the LJC committee’s report. I think that, if we did that, it would risk avoidable delay in making any necessary changes to the key terms, as we would need to wait for a primary legislation opportunity. Such a delay could potentially leave some buildings not adequately regulated, impacting on the effectiveness of the safety regime for those buildings.

In addition to bringing forward this amendment, which significantly limits the powers in section 16, part of amendment 112, which I will be turning to next, would make any regulations made under section 16 subject to an enhanced approval mechanism. The enhanced procedure requires that a proposed draft of any regulations is laid before the Senedd for 60 days, along with a statement detailing the consultation carried out and why the regulations are considered necessary. Together, I believe these two amendments address the concerns raised by the LJC committee in relation to section 16.

As I was just alluding to, amendment 112 relates to concerns and recommendations 8 and 11 made by the LJC committee. These recommendations suggest that regulations made under sections 16 and 27 should be subject to an enhanced approval mechanism. Regulations made under both section 16 and 27(2) would be capable of altering certain key definitions found in the Bill, such as the description of the terms 'independent part' and 'building safety risk'. Although these regulations were already subject to the approval procedure, I broadly agree with the committee’s observations on these sections.

Amendment 112 therefore applies a new procedure to regulations made under sections 16 or 27(2). This procedure is as follows. Firstly, a proposed draft of the regulations, a statement setting out the detail of any consultation conducted, and an explanation of why Welsh Ministers believe regulations are necessary, must be laid before the Senedd for a period of 60 days. Following this, if Welsh Ministers decide to lay a draft statutory instrument containing regulations, they must include with that draft a statement giving details of any representations they received during the 60-day period. They must also give details in the statement of any differences between the proposed draft of the regulations and the regulations in the draft statutory instrument.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Does any committee member wish to speak in this group? No. Nothing further you would wish to add, Cabinet Secretary? Okay.

The question then is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. So, amendment 83 is agreed.

The next group, then, group 2, relates to minor and technical amendments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 84.

I move amendment 84 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendments 84, 1, 3, 86, 4, 89, 93, 94, 96, 12, 97, 98, 99, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 44, 45, 114, 115, 116, 118, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 140, 141, 62 and 82 are all minor technical amendments that provide clarity or improve equivalence between the English and Welsh texts of the Bill. They amend sections 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 33, 38, 53, 55, 61, 67, 77, 78, 82, 90, 91, 96, 109, Schedule 2 and the long title of the Bill. I urge Members to support the amendments in this group.

Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. Any committee member wish to speak? No. Nothing to add, Cabinet Secretary? Thank you very much. The question, then, is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see no objection. So, amendment 84 is agreed.

I move amendment 1 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 1 is agreed.

I move amendment 85 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 85 is agreed.

I move amendment 2 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 2 is agreed.

I move amendment 3 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 3 is agreed.

I move amendment 86 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 86 is agreed.

I move amendment 87 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 87 is agreed.

I move amendment 88 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 88 is agreed.

I move amendment 4 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 4 is agreed.

I move amendment 89 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 89 is agreed.

That takes us to group 3. This group relates to registration of category 1 and category 2 buildings. The lead amendment is amendment 90.

I move amendment 90 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendments 90 and 91 relate to recommendation 10 of the LJC Stage 1 report, and this recommendation sought an amendment to section 19(3) of the Bill to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the process by which building safety authorities register buildings. I accepted the recommendation in my response to the committee and, in accordance with that, amendment 90 converts the existing power to make regulations in 19(3) into a duty to do so.

Amendment 91 is consequential to amendment 90. It preserves the existing power to make regulations about documents that must be included with an application. This power should not be made into a duty, as it may not be necessary for additional documents to be included with an application.

Having reviewed the other regulation-making powers in the Bill in the light of the amendments that I've tabled in relation to section 19(3), I have identified other instances where a power to make regulations would be better expressed as a duty to do so. One of these instances relates to section 23(3). This provides a power for the Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the procedure by which a principal accountable person would give a declaration about the accuracy of information and documents included in the register of category 1 and category 2 buildings.

Amendment 92 converts this power into a duty, so that it is consistent with the change being made in section 19(3) by amendment 90. I ask the committee to support all three amendments in this group.

Thank you very much. Does any committee member wish to speak on this group? No. There's nothing further you would wish to add, Cabinet Secretary? No. The question, then, is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 90 is agreed.

I move amendment 91 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 91 is agreed.

I move amendment 92 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 92 is agreed.

We reach group 4. The fourth group of amendments relates to fire risk assessments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 150. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. With regard to amendment 150, it's considered that the Bill does not currently make it sufficiently clear on its face that fire risk assessments are intended to apply only to the common parts of a building, with this limitation instead being left to regulations. It is believed that this lack of clarity creates uncertainty for those responsible for compliance and risks inconsistent interpretation in practice.

In particular, any inadvertent extension of the scope of fire risk assessments to include individual residential dwellings would be both operationally unworkable and undesirable from the perspective of residents. To avoid this outcome, and to provide certainty for all parties, this amendment is therefore proposed to make it explicit within the Bill that fire risk assessments are confined to the common parts of the building.

In terms of amendment 152, this looks to remove the automatic six-months enforcement for fire risk assessment after the building is occupied, or six months after the Bill comes into force. One of the concerns of stakeholders is that there is a limited workforce who will be able to carry out these fire risk assessments. It may also be the case that the principal accountable person is unable to find in time a suitably qualified person to carry out this assessment and, through no fault of their own, they may not meet the six-months deadline. This could have serious consequences for landlords and homeowners, in particular with regard to insurance liability, whereby a building will no longer be insured if it hasn't met the conditions of the Bill. This can affect tenants and landlords, who, again, through no fault of their own, will fail to meet legal requirements and will be liable to return rent. The amendment will, instead, require the Welsh Government to set out, by regulation, when the first fire risk assessment must be made, which can be more sensitive to the issues that I have outlined.

In terms of 151, 153 and 154, can I first thank and express my appreciation for the openness of conversation that I have had with the Cabinet Secretary regarding these? These amendments are, again, sensitive to the issue that, given the number of category 1, 2 and 3 buildings across Wales, we may consider that, rather than remove the six-months enforcement deadline entirely, it can be extended to reflect the scale of the challenge that will need to be met in ensuring that all fire risk assessments can be carried out by the current workforce without detriment to owners and landlords. Obviously, if amendment 152 is passed, there will be no need for amendments 151 and 153.

Finally, in terms of amendments 155 and 156, these amendments are intended to revise the trigger points for adaptations and works to a building, making clear that the requirement for a new fire risk assessment is only triggered where a building is first adapted to meet the needs of disabled residents. Thank you, Chair.

Diolch, Joel. Is there any other committee member who wishes to speak on this group? No, then I call the Cabinet Secretary to speak.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I can see the reasoning behind Joel James's amendment 150, but I am concerned that its inclusion could result in the weakening of the existing position in respect of the scope of fire risk assessments. For example, fire risk assessments need to include the structural elements separating residential units from each other and from the common parts. Those are vital to sound compartmentation, and excluding residential units from an assessment altogether creates too much doubt as to whether such walls would need to be covered by the risk assessment. A fire risk assessment needs to cover all elements of the building that would either present a fire hazard to residents generally or protect them from such hazards. That means the structure of the building and its common parts, not the contents of individual residential units. There would be no point in assessing fire risks that exist within individual dwellings. They present no risk to residents generally, if the compartmentation is sound, and accountable persons cannot control the contents of such dwellings or the lawful everyday behaviour of residents in their own homes. Regulations made under the existing power in the Bill can provide the necessary detail not contained in amendment 150. They can contain the level of detail needed to make clear the extent to which parts of residential units need to be included in the fire risk assessments and the methodology that must be used.

Joel's next three amendments deal with the timing of the first fire risk assessment and offer different ways to give more flexibility for category 3 buildings in particular. I can see the case for doing something in this area, but I cannot support the amendments as they stand. Amendment 151 gives me real cause for concern. On its own terms, it would mean that there would only be a deadline for completing the first fire risk assessment in category 1 and category 2 buildings. With no provision for the first fire risk assessment for category 3 buildings, the application of the trigger events in section 30(2) of the Bill would also be called into question. For example, if no works or adaptations were done to the building, it would be possible that there never would be a fire risk assessment under the Bill until after a serious fire broke out, and that would be a very significant weakening of the protection currently provided for by the fire safety Order.

As I said to the committee at Stage 1, smaller buildings are in some ways more dangerous than larger ones. Buildings converted into flats, almost all of which will be in category 3, consistently have a higher rate of fire casualties than purpose-built blocks, which include all category buildings in categories 1 and 2. When the different levels of occupancy are factored in, a resident of a house converted into flats is many times more likely to be at risk of death or injury if a fire breaks out than a resident of a purpose-built tower block. There are several reasons for this, but the simplest is that a resident of a smaller building is likely to be closer to a fire when it breaks out and to have less time and space to escape from it. So, unfortunately, this amendment seriously undermines safety in what can be among our least safe residential buildings.

I do have some sympathy with what Joel aims to do with amendment 153. Community Housing Cymru have expressed concerns about the Bill's current requirement that the first fire risk assessment under the Bill must be completed within six months of section 30 coming into force or, where the transitional provisions apply, within a year of the last assessment under the fire safety Order, if that is later. CHC points out that this could create a significant spike in demand for competent assessors, which the market may not be able to meet, and significant costs for landlords. That is especially so in the case of the so-called walk-up flats, small blocks in which there are no internal common areas and where every flat has its own external exit or leading to the ground floor. Many such buildings are currently only assessed every few years, which is generally sound practice. Walk-up flats are an exception to the rule that small buildings are more dangerous, because they have no internal shared escape route that can be obstructed or threatened by fire. If a fire breaks out anywhere within the building, each household has its own separate means of escape. I can see that requiring all blocks of walk-up flats to be subject to assessment within a six-month period might well have the effect that CHC have claimed, and I would be willing to extend that to 12 months, as Joel James has proposed, but only for buildings like walk-up flats. So, if Joel is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I would be happy to bring forward a Government amendment at Stage 3 to achieve this.

I'm happy to support Joel James's amendment 154. Disabled residents are often more likely to experience a fire and less likely to be able to escape from it if unaided. So, when a building is first adapted to meet the needs of disabled residents, the fire risk in the building will likely change significantly. It is important that these risks are properly and promptly assessed and effective steps are taken to protect disabled residents in the event of a fire. I trust that we can all agree with that. However, once that is done, I agree that there is no good case for always conducting a further assessment after any further adaptations are made. The fire risk assessment should already cover the risks for disabled residents, so doing another one would not necessarily add any value. It would also create significant avoidable costs, especially for buildings like sheltered housing facilities with a high proportion of disabled residents. So, Joel's amendment helpfully reflects that principle and amends the Bill accordingly.

I regret, though, that I cannot support amendment 155. It would allow principal accountable persons to decide whether building works or adaptations were significant in terms of fire safety. Only if they decide that they were significant would they have to conduct a further assessment. Such a decision is often very hard to make, especially for someone with limited expertise in fire safety, and no guidance can overcome that. Building works, for instance, can have complex, unintended and elusive implications for fire safety, which lay people may find hard to grasp. They might reasonably think that because works have been completed satisfactorily that all was well. Those responsible for Grenfell Tower, for instance, believed that the cladding that had been installed was perfectly safe. They were, of course, completely and tragically wrong about that.

Diolch yn fawr. And Joel James to reply.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank the Cabinet Secretary for a comprehensive response to the amendments and also for an advance copy of the letter to CHC, which arrived yesterday, I think. I accept some of the concerns that have been expressed, and I'm willing to withdraw a number of the amendments in the hope that, as you mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, you would be willing to bring some at Stage 3 then, as Government amendments. So, in terms of withdrawing amendments, I'm happy to withdraw 150, 152, 151 and 153, but I would still like to put 155 to the vote, just to see what the committee feeling is on that.

Okay, we'll go through those amendments now, Joel. Before we do, Lee Waters. Lee.

Yes, I just want to say I've been in correspondence with the Minister on some of these matters as well, and I welcome what she said and the spirit in which she is going to engage with the concerns. I think the arguments she sets out against some of the amendments Joel James has tabled are compelling, and I look forward to seeing what amendments the Government brings forward at Stage 3.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Joel, amendment 150, you wish to—

Withdraw, yes.

Withdraw, okay. Does any other Member wish that amendment to be moved? No. So, no objection to withdrawal, then. That amendment is withdrawn.

Joel, amendment 152.

I'd like to withdraw.

You'd like to withdraw. Okay, that's not moved, so that's fine.

Joel, amendment 151.

I'd like to withdraw.

You'd like to withdraw that again, okay. So, that's not moved.

Joel, amendment 153.

I withdraw.

Withdrawn again. So, not moved.

And Joel, 154.

I'd like to move.

Right, so amendment 154 is moved. The question is that amendment 154 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, then amendment 154 is agreed.

Joel, amendment 155.

Yes, I'd like to move.

Okay, amendment 155 is moved. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 155 be agreed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? And those against. And any abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 155, there voted two in favour, four against, and that amendment is not agreed.

Joel, amendment 156.

Yes, please.

Okay, amendment 156 is moved. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, there are no objections, so amendment 156 is agreed.

We come to group 5: duties of accountable persons and principal accountable persons. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 157. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel.

Thank you, Chair, and speaking to amendments 157 to 166, these proposed amendments would revise the legislation to provide that the principal accountable person is responsible for assessing structural safety risk in a manner aligned with the approach taken to fire risk assessments, while retaining responsibility for the ongoing management of that risk with the accountable persons. I recognise that, in many cases, the accountable person, the principal accountable person, would be the same individual or organisation, and it may therefore be argued that these amendments are unnecessary.

However, I would contend that explicitly aligning accountability for structural fire safety risks will make it as straightforward as possible for those responsible to understand and discharge obligations under this legislation, thereby supporting the shared objective of maintaining safe buildings. Moreover, assessing structural risks in isolation risks encouraging a piecemeal approach to building and fire safety, which may fail to address interconnected or underlying issues. A key objective of the amendments is to align accountability for structural and fire safety risks, which will make it easier for duty holders to meet the obligations under this legislation, and in doing so, help to ensure that buildings are kept safe. Taking a whole-building approach to risk is essential, as assessing structural risk in isolation risks addressing symptoms rather than underlying causes. For example, a seemingly localised issue, such as a fire door moving within its frame, may in fact point to more structural problems, including uneven subsidence affecting the building's foundations.

The scale of the challenge in implementing a new and consistent assessment regime should not be underestimated. Anecdotal evidence from England indicates that shortcomings in structural risk assessments are the most common reason for the rejection of safety case reports. This experience underscores the substantial task facing Wales in embedding a robust, consistent approach to risk assessments alongside an effective enforcement framework. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Joel. Any other committee member wish to speak on this group? No. Then I call the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and thank you, Joel. The Bill currently requires that where a category 1 or category 2 building is occupied, each accountable person for the building must ensure that the structural safety risks relating to the part of the building for which the person is responsible are assessed in accordance with section 33 of the Bill. We have done this because we consider it should be the person who owns or who has relevant repairing obligations for that part of the building who is responsible for the assessment of the structural safety risks for it.

This approach does not prevent a principal accountable person and accountable persons from co-operating on the assessment of structural safety risks. However, I am keen to avoid a scenario in which the principal accountable person, in having to undertake an assessment for the whole building, is more likely to consider that a full survey is required because they are not familiar with those parts for which they are not the accountable person.

It is not currently our intention to require structural surveys as part of the structural risk assessment, as this would not be appropriate for all buildings. It would be for an accountable person to determine, in undertaking the structural risk assessment, whether there is any need to commission further surveys to examine potential risks. Stakeholders have advised they would be very concerned about an environment in which structural surveys become a default requirement, since, in practice, for many buildings, they may not be necessary.

Section 60 of the Bill places a duty on accountable persons and the principal accountable person to co-operate and co-ordinate in relation to carrying out their duties under the Act and its associated regulations. It's important to retain the Bill's requirement for accountable persons to assess structural safety risks for the parts of the building for which they are responsible.

Therefore, I cannot support amendments 157 to 166, and urge Members to vote against them.

Okay, thank you. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. I would just like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for her comments there, and then, again, for the relevant comments in the letter to CHC, but if it's possible, I'd still like to move to a vote, just to get a sense of the committee's feeling.

Okay, thank you very much, Joel. So, you wish to move to a vote on amendment 157?

Yes, please.

Okay. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will move to a vote. So, with regard to amendment 157, will all those in favour please raise your hands? And those against. And any abstentions. No. So, with regard to amendment 157, there voted two in favour, four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 158?

Yes, please.

Okay. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will move to a vote. So, with regard to amendment 158, will all those in favour please show? And all those against. So, with regard to amendment 158, there voted two in favour, four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 159?

Yes, please.

Okay, amendment 159 is moved. The question is that amendment 159 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote. With regard to amendment 159, will all those in favour please show? And all those against. With regard to amendment 159, there voted two in favour, four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 160?

Yes, please.

Amendment 160 is moved. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour of amendment 160 please show? And all those against. Okay, with regard to amendment 160, there voted two in favour, four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 161?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. In relation to amendment 161, there voted two in favour, four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 162?

Yes, please.

Okay, amendment 162 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. In relation to amendment 162, will all those in favour please show? And all those against. With regard to amendment 162, there voted two in favour and four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 163?

Yes, please.

Amendment 163 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. In relation to amendment 163, will all those in favour please show? And all those against. With regard to amendment 163, there voted two in favour and four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 164?

Yes, please.

Okay, amendment 164 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. In relation to amendment 164, will all those in favour please show? And all those against. Okay, in relation to amendment 164, there voted two in favour and four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Joel, amendment 165?

Yes, please.

Okay, amendment 165 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote on amendment 165. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. Okay, in relation to amendment 165, there voted two in favour and four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 93 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections to amendment 93. It is therefore agreed.

Joel, amendment 166?

Yes, please.

Amendment 166 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 166. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. With regard to amendment 166, there voted two in favour and four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Okay, that takes us to group 6, but before we continue with group 6, the committee will take a short 10-minute break until 10.30 a.m. Diolch yn fawr.

Welcome back, everyone, to our Stage 2 proceedings after our short break. We've reached group 6 on remediation, and I'm very pleased to welcome Rhys ab Owen MS to committee, as Rhys has amendments in this group, and Rhys will speak to them. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 143. I call on Siân Gwenllian to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Siân.

Diolch yn fawr. Felly, dwi'n symud gwelliant 143. Jest i ddweud ar y dechrau, wrth gwrs, fy mod i'n cytuno'n llwyr efo cynnwys y Bil yma, ac mae'n hen bryd iddo fo ddod i rym yma yng Nghymru. Ond dwi yn meddwl bod yna golli cyfle mawr wedi bod efo un mater penodol y gellid fod wedi ei gynnwys yn y Bil yma, a hynny, wrth gwrs, ydy'r gwaith cyweirio, ac, yn ail, mater costau i lesddeiliaid sydd wedi cael eu dal mewn sefyllfaoedd anodd iawn o ran yr angen i wneud gwaith cyweirio ar eu cartrefi nhw. Rydyn ni'n gwybod bod yna ofid mawr ar draws y wlad am yr arafwch efo'r gwaith o adfer diffygion yn adeiladau categori 1 a 2. Saith mlynedd ers trasiedi Grenfell, dydy hi ddim yn ddigon da bod pobl yn dal i fyw mewn ofn—ofn dyddiol—fod eu hadeilad nhw'n beryglus neu fod peryg tân yn bodoli yna. Rydyn ni i gyd yn cydymdeimlo yn fawr efo'r preswylwyr hynny sydd yn y sefyllfaoedd hynny.

Ar hyn o bryd, does yna ddim gwaith wedi cychwyn ar 30 y cant o'r adeiladau yma. Mae hynna yn hollol annerbyniol—dim gwaith wedi cychwyn ar 30 y cant o'r adeiladau yma, saith mlynedd yn ddiweddarach. Ac mae yna 19 y cant yn dal i aros am arolygon, a 5 y cant heb unrhyw fath o gynllun mewn lle o gwbl. Mae hyn yn golygu bod 282 allan o 468 o adeiladau yn dal i aros am waith i ddechrau, 198 yng nghategori 2 a 55 yng nghategori 1. Ac wrth gwrs, mae rhywun yn gall rhoi'r ystadegau diweddaraf gerbron y pwyllgor, ond mae hyn yn mynd ymhellach nag ystadegau, wrth gwrs, ac mae'r pwyllgor wedi cael tystiolaeth gan breswylwyr ac wedi cael straeon erchyll gan rai sydd yn dioddef yn sgil y diffyg gweithredu. A dwi'n credu mai un o'r sesiynau mwyaf pwerus gawsom ni yn y pwyllgor yma oedd pan gawsom ni breswylwyr yn dod i mewn atom ni ac yn adrodd eu straeon nhw, ac yn gwneud hynny yn ddidwyll ac yn gwneud hynny mewn ffordd a oedd yn effeithio arnom ni.

Mae'n hollol amlwg fod eisiau cyflymu'r gwaith adfer ar yr adeiladau yma sydd ar ôl, a hynny er lles y rhai sydd yn byw yn yr adeiladau. Ac felly, dwi'n chwilio am sicrwydd bod y gwaith adfer yma yn mynd i fod yn digwydd yn briodol ac yn amserol o hyn ymlaen. Rydyn ni'n gwybod bod yna gontractau yn bodoli rhwng y Llywodraeth a datblygwyr, ond dydyn ni ddim fel pwyllgor yn gwybod beth yw cynnwys y contractau yma. Felly, dyna fy mwriad i yn dod â'r gwelliannau yma ymlaen.

A gaf i dynnu eich sylw chi—? Mae yna bedwar gwelliant yn grŵp 6 sydd yn ymwneud yn benodol efo gwaith cyweirio. Gwelliant 143: mi fyddai hwn yn galluogi Gweinidogion Cymru i wneud rheoliadau ynglŷn â gosod deadlines are gyfer cwblhau gwaith cyweirio mewn adeiladau penodol, a hefyd yn galluogi Gweinidogion Cymru i roi sancsiynau am fethu a chyd-fynd efo'r deadlines hynny. Dyna ydy bwriad gwelliant 143.

Mae gwelliant 144 yn gosod dyletswydd ar Weinidogion Cymru i greu cynllun cyweirio—remediation plan. O basio'r gwelliant yma, byddai angen i'r Gweinidogion baratoi a chyhoeddi cynllun cyweirio ar gyfer adeiladau categori 1 a chategori 2. Mi fuasai'n rhaid i'r cynllun yma gynnwys disgrifiad o'r math o waith sydd angen digwydd, amserlen yn gosod allan erbyn pryd mae angen i'r gwaith orffen, a rhestr o weithredoedd y gallai Gweinidogion Cymru eu cymryd os dydy'r cwblhau ddim yn digwydd yn briodol o fewn y dyddiadau sydd wedi cael eu gosod. Yn y gwelliant yma hefyd, mae yna ofynion i fod yn gallu adolygu'r cynllun o dro i dro, ei gyhoeddi fo mewn amser priodol, a rhoi adroddiad monitro hefyd, er mwyn gwneud yn siŵr bod yna dryloywder o gwmpas hyn i gyd. Felly, dyna ydy gwelliant 144.

Mae gwelliant 148 yn mynd â ni ymlaen i drafod costau cyweirio i bobl efo les mewn categorïau penodol, ac yn ceisio diogelu preswylwyr rhag cario’r baich o’r gwaith angenrheidiol sydd angen cael ei wneud i’w hadeiladau nhw oherwydd eu bod nhw’n beryg. Oes nad oes rheoliadau mewn lle i sicrhau nad ydy datblygwyr yn medru pasio'r costau ymlaen i breswylwyr, mae'n bosib bod rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn parhau, efallai, i fyw mewn amodau anodd a thalu am ddiffygion datblygwyr, sydd yn hollol annheg, wrth gwrs.

Diolch, Siân. We'll turn to Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd, and thank you for the invitation to join you this morning. I was very glad when the Llywydd agreed with my argument that remediation should be within the scope of this Bill. The Government seems to have shifted its view since the general principles debate, when the Government suggested that it wouldn't be within the scope. I'm grateful for constructive discussions with the Government, and I look forward to that continuing whilst we move on to Stage 3. I would also like to thank the clerking team and the legal team of this committee for all the assistance they've given me.

I speak to all the amendments in my name. As Siân has already done, I give our sincere thanks and acknowledge the work of the building safety victims in Wales, especially the Welsh Cladiators group, for their courage not only in fighting to make their own homes safe, but to provide the legal levers for residents living in 180 category 1 and 449 category 2 buildings across Wales. My amendments deliver on their campaign and what they've been asking for, because they, effectively, implement sections 116 to 125 of the Building Safety Act 2002 at Westminster. As the Welsh Cladiators explained in a letter to the Government on 14 October 2022,

'We are at a loss to understand why Welsh Government does not legislate as a matter of urgency to incorporate ss116-125 of the Building Safety Act into law in Wales. It would be simple, the sections have already been drafted, subject to wide parliamentary scrutiny and enacted.'

Why did the UK Government include the provisions in sections 116 to 125? In terms of the remediation orders, as the then building safety Minister said in a House of Lords debate in 2022, remediation orders

'would enable a leaseholder to apply to a tribunal to require a landlord to undertake remediation work if they were not already doing so.'

With regard to the remediation contribution orders, my amendment, as was the case with the UK Government amendment in 2022, would provide a potentially easier route to secure funding for remediation rather than through the costly civil action such as under the Defective Premises Act 1972. This is what Angela Rayner said last July in reference to remediation orders and remediation contribution orders:

'When remediation is not progressing, leaseholders can apply to the tribunal for remediation orders, which can compel relevant landlords to fix relevant defects in their buildings, as well as for remediation contribution orders, which require developers to pay towards the costs of the remediation.'

Why deprive Welsh victims of those levers championed by the then deputy leader of the Labour Party? Are the sections worth while? Well, yes, they are. As Dentons, a global legal firm, reported,

'RCOs have fundamentally changed the landscape of liability for building safety remediation.'

Just look at the cases they have brought forward in England. It works. Triathlon, the long leaseholder of social and affordable units in five London apartment blocks, applied for a remediation contribution order against SVDP, the original developer, and Get Living, an associate of SVDP, that acquired its interest years after the development. Even in a complicated case, both were ordered to pay Triathlon's share of remediation costs to the management company overseeing the works in a timely manner.

A year ago exactly, the first-tier tribunal published their decision, making a remediation contribution order to the sum of over £13.2 million against 76 respondents as part of the litigation surrounding works to Vista Tower. The global law firm Taylor Wessing, when referring to the building safety landscape in England, explained how

'tribunal decisions demonstrate the increasingly robust approach to building safety remediation following the introduction of the BSA 2022'.

That's what the victims are calling for: a robust approach. That law firm explained that they provide a clear message to developers and landlords, that

'proactive identification and remediation of building safety defects is essential, with works being carried out promptly. Those prioritising financial considerations over safety concerns face substantial liability through RCOs. The key is early identification of defects, proper expert advice, clear remediation planning, and transparent stakeholder communication.'

That point was supported by Asia Munir, the director in real estate litigation at Walker Morris, another large global law firm, who said, when referring to the support of Tower Hamlets London Borough Council in issuing what is believed to be one of the first RCO applications to a local authority:

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys. Does any other committee member wish to speak on this group? No. Then, Cabinet Secretary, please.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. As Siân has set out, her amendments 148 and 149 seek to protect leaseholders from the costs associated with remediation. Amendments 64 to 81, tabled by Rhys, attempt to do something similar but, in addition, provide for remediation orders and remediation contribution orders to be made by the Residential Property Tribunal.

I note that the amendments seek to make provision similar to that which already applies in England under sections 116 to 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. We have not previously sought to put in place similar legal protections in Wales because it has not been necessary to do so. In Wales, the cost of remediating in-built fire safety defects has been borne either by developers who have signed a deed of bilateral contract with Welsh Ministers, agreeing to a set of developer self-remediation terms, or by the Welsh Government through the Welsh building safety fund. The fund supports the remediation of in-built internal and external fire safety issues in residential buildings 11m in height or over and is not limited to buildings with unsafe cladding. In the event that a developer fails to adhere to a self-remediation term of its contract, it would be the Welsh Ministers who would take legal action against the developer, rather than leaseholders, thus ensuring that a leaseholder does not incur legal costs associated with taking enforcement action.

This comprehensive approach to remediation has largely negated the need for legal protections here in Wales. However, I am aware that there have been ongoing calls from leaseholders and others who would prefer to have the additional security that these legal protections potentially offer. I'm also conscious that we have started to see structural safety issues emerge that may require a different approach. Furthermore, the long-term future of the Welsh building safety programme is not guaranteed. It will depend on who forms the next Government. In the light of these factors, I have concluded that it is time to futureproof the protections for leaseholders from certain service charges related to remediation of relevant defects by placing them on a statutory footing.

I accept that amendments 148 and 149, and 64 to 81, represent laudable attempts to do just that, and I have no objection in principle to their underlying aims and objectives. However, I cannot support the amendments as currently drafted. There are various issues with them that we would need to address in order to make them work as intended. For example, neither set of amendments includes a cut-off date after which a new lease would not qualify for protection. Amongst other things, this could have unintended consequence for the housing market or the financial viability of relevant buildings.

Diolch yn fawr. And Siân Gwenllian to respond. Siân.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd, a diolch yn fawr hefyd i bawb sydd wedi helpu efo’r gwaith ynghlwm â chael y gwelliannau yma gerbron y pwyllgor. Dwi'n ddiolchgar iawn am y gwaith manwl sydd wedi digwydd, a diolch yn arbennig i'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet am y trafodaethau rydym ni wedi'u cael dros yr wythnosau diwethaf yma ar y Bil yma, a'r Bil digartrefedd, wrth gwrs—dau Fil pwysig iawn yn cydredeg, i bob pwrpas.

Roeddwn i'n sylwi bod Rhys yn sôn am sgôp y Bil, a dwi'n meddwl eich bod chi'n iawn; mae yna symud wedi bod. Reit ar y cychwyn, roedd pendantrwydd na fyddai'r math yma o welliannau o fewn sgôp y Bil, ond dwi yn falch iawn bod yna dderbyniad i weld ychydig bach mwy agored rŵan fod y math yma o faterion o fewn sgôp y Bil, a dwi hefyd, wrth gwrs, yn talu teyrnged i'r Cladiators a phawb sydd wedi bod yn ymgyrchu ynghylch y materion pwysig iawn yma.

Diolch yn fawr iawn i'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet am y llythyr mae hi wedi'i anfon ataf fi, a dwi'n meddwl bod y pwyllgor wedi cael copi o'r llythyr yna hefyd. Rydych chi'n sôn, yn gyntaf, am 148 a 149, y gwelliannau sydd yn ymwneud efo ceisio cael gwarchodaeth cyfreithiol i lesddeiliaid sydd yn mynd i'w diogelu nhw rhag costau. A dwi yn falch o glywed y bore yma, a hefyd yn y llythyr, eich bod chi'n dweud—a dwi'n dyfynnu o'r llythyr—'Byddwn yn hapus i weithio gyda chi ar welliannau amgen Cyfnod 3 y Llywodraeth mewn perthynas â diogelu costau llesddeiliaid.' Felly, mae hwnna'n newyddion da iawn, ac felly wnaf i ddim symud y gwelliannau penodol yna pan ddawn ni atyn nhw. Dwi yn gobeithio y gall Rhys ab Owen wneud yr un peth, fel ein bod ni'n gallu cael trafodaeth ystyrlon rhwng rŵan a chyflwyno gwelliannau Cyfnod 3, fel ein bod ni'n gallu cyrraedd sefyllfa lle mae gennym ni ffordd o basio deddfwriaeth sydd yn mynd i fod yn cynnwys gwarchodaeth cyfreithiol. Felly, byddwn i'n gobeithio bod yn drafodaeth bellach i'w chael, yn cynnwys Rhys hefyd, wrth gwrs.

Wedyn, rydych chi'n eithaf clir dydych chi ddim yn cefnogi gwelliannau 143 ac 144 ynglŷn â chyweirio a gosod amserlenni a gosod cynllun yn eu lle. Y bwriad efo 144, wrth gwrs, oedd cynnig rhywbeth amgen, ffordd wahanol o gyrraedd at yr un peth oedd yn cael ei amlinellu fel trosolwg yn 143. So, mae 144 tipyn bach yn fwy penodol ac yn rhoi mwy o fanylion, ond dydych chi ddim yn meddwl y gallwch chi weithio efo hynny. Mi ydych chi'n dweud yn y llythyr, 'Byddwn yn falch o gwrdd â chi i drafod ymhellach yr uchelgais y tu ôl i'r gwelliannau a sut y gallwn weithio gyda'n gilydd i fynd i'r afael â'r nod cyffredin o gynyddu cyflymder gwaith cyfeirio yn y rhaglen.' Dwi'n siomedig eich bod chi wedi rhyw awgrymu efallai na fyddech chi'n fodlon meddwl yn benodol ar gyfer y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol, ac na fyddech chi efallai yn ystyried hyn ar gyfer Cyfnod 3, ond dwi'n mynd i dal i geisio eich perswadio chi. Fe wnawn ni barhau efo'r trafodaethau adeiladol rydyn ni wedi'u cael cyn belled i weld a oes yna fodd, mewn unrhyw ffordd, i gryfhau'r ddeddfwriaeth bresennol, yn hytrach na'i gadael o i'r Senedd nesaf, achos nid oes wybod beth all ddigwydd yn y Senedd nesaf.

Dwi'n derbyn eich bod chi'n gweld—. Rydych chi wedi rhestru nifer o ganlyniadau a allai ddigwydd, ac, wrth gwrs, dydw i ddim eisiau gweld unrhyw fath o unintended consequences yn digwydd chwaith. Dwi yn gweld bod yr ymgynghori hefyd yn rhan bwysig o'r hyn sydd angen digwydd, ond dwi yn gobeithio bod y drafodaeth y bore yma, a'r ffaith ein bod ni wedi mynd i ymdrech fawr i geisio cynnwys yr elfennau yma yn y ddeddfwriaeth, wedi hoelio sylwi swyddogion, a chi fel yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet, ar yr angen i fod yn rhoi pob ffocws ar gyflymu'r rhaglen gyweirio bresennol, yn amlwg, er mwyn y bobl hynny sydd yn byw, o hyd, o dan amylchiadau sy'n creu ofn iddyn nhw yn ddyddiol.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Siân. The question, then, is that amendment 143 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. There is an objection, and so we will—

But I'm going to withdraw.

Did you not move it?

I moved it, but then—

You'd like to withdraw, Siân.

—at the end, I can say that I want to withdraw, yes?

Absolutely, yes. Okay, so—

So, dwi'n tynnu 143 yn ôl.

Yes. So, does any Member object to withdrawal, or want to move it? No. So, amendment 143 is withdrawn.

Siân, amendment 144.

Peidio â symud.

Not moving.

Okay, so, amendment 144 is not moved.

I move amendment 94 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. So, the question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then, amendment 94 is agreed.

Okay. So, that then takes the committee on to group 7, which relates to residents' engagement strategies. [Interruption.] I thank Rhys ab Owen for contributing to Stage 2 proceedings of the committee. Diolch yn fawr.

So, group 7 is about residents' engagement strategies. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 167, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Speaking to my amendment 167, I have brought forward this amendment in response to evidence provided by Jenny Preece of the University of Sheffield and the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. In her evidence, it was noted that section 39 limits the requirement to prepare and implement a residents' engagement strategy, designed to promote participation in key building safety decisions, to category 1 buildings only.

However, research with leaseholders in England living in buildings affected by cladding and fire safety defects highlights persistent and widespread concerns regarding access to information about fire safety risks, as well as the quality of communication with building occupants. Leaseholders frequently report difficulties in obtaining information, both proactively and upon request, alongside limited engagement from those responsible for building safety.

Moreover, these findings suggest that challenges in communication and involvement are not substantially differentiated by building height. For example, similar issues have been reported in buildings over 18m and in those buildings between 11m and 18m. In this context, it is not immediately clear why residents' engagement should be a statutory requirement for a building of seven storeys but not for one of six storeys.

I argue that requiring the principal accountable person for category 2 buildings to prepare a residents' engagement strategy would help address these gaps in communication and ensure that occupants are more effectively informed and involved in decisions affecting their safety. Implementing this requirement would also help address concerns, particularly in the private sector, where there is generally a less established culture of resident engagement, compared with the social housing sector. By strengthening the role of residents' engagement in category 2 buildings, this amendment seeks to promote transparency, improve trust between residents and building managers, and enhance overall building safety outcomes. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Joel. Does any other committee member wish to speak on this group? No. Then I call the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. As the committee knows, residents' voice is a core principle of the Bill, and that is why I am tabling amendments 5 to 8 in this group. I do, however, have concerns about extending the provisions in section 39 to category 2 buildings, which is what amendment 167 does, without comprehensive consultation with residents and landlords. That is because of the cost implication for both residents and landlords. For this reason, and for other reasons that I will set out, I cannot support amendment 167.

Based on current estimates, the average annual cost of preparing a residents' engagement strategy, holding meetings with residents, and updating the strategy and any building management maintenance plans in category 1 buildings, is around £70 per flat per year. Under the Bill as introduced, these duties do not apply to category 2 buildings. Introducing them would have very serious cost implications for principal accountable persons and ultimately for residents. In fact, the cost per flat would likely be higher for a category 2 building, since there are typically fewer flats per building to share the cost. This further underlines the risk of extending these provisions to category 2 without comprehensive consultation with landlords and residents.

Secondly, this amendment inserts category 2 buildings only into section 39, which deals with the preparation and review of the residents' engagement strategy. It does not amend section 40, which requires the strategy to be provided to residents. This would result in a situation where a principal accountable person must prepare a strategy for a category 2 building, but has no duty to actually share the strategy with residents. This is clearly an incomplete approach.

In addition, the proposed amendment makes no consequential amendment to section 62. As a result, the cost for preparing a residents' engagement strategy for category 2 buildings would not be recoverable via a service charge. It is my view that, if these duties were to apply to category 2 buildings, associated administrative costs should be recoverable in the same way as for category 1 buildings. Residents in category 2 buildings will still be empowered by better resident engagement, with new rights to have their complaints heard and to be able to request further building safety information from their accountable person. This is in line with the general approach of proportionality we have taken in developing the new regime provided for in this Bill.

I have also tabled amendment 51, which will be discussed later, which places a duty on Welsh Ministers to set out in a published strategy the matters on which they propose to engage with residents of all regulated buildings and relevant HMOs, and how they propose to do so. This will ensure that residents have a voice in all building safety matters that affect them. Therefore, and for the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support amendment 167, and I encourage Members to reject it.

Diolch yn fawr. Joel.

Thank you, Chair, and I am grateful for the Cabinet Secretary's response. I suppose 167 was always tabled just to get a flavour of what the Government's feelings were on expanding it to category 2. Obviously, if it is okay, I'd like to withdraw that amendment and maybe bring it back at Stage 3, where it's a bit more substantial then, to see what the rest of the Welsh Parliament feels then. But I am happy as a group to support the Government's recommendations here then as well.

Okay. Thank you, Joel. With regard to amendment 167 then, Joel wishes to withdraw that amendment. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 167 is withdrawn.

I move amendment 5 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 5 is agreed.

I move amendment 6 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 6 is agreed.

I move amendment 7 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 7 is agreed.

I move amendment 8 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Are there any objections? Amendment 8 is, then, agreed.

This takes us to group 8, which relates to information and complaints. The lead amendment is amendment 95.

I move amendment 95 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 95 places a duty on relevant persons to provide information or documents to an accountable person for the building. The information or document must be necessary for the accountable person to be able to meet their duties. It must also be reasonable for the relevant person to provide the information. An equivalent duty, amendment 113 in group 13, has been laid in relation to providing information to HMO duty holders too. The purpose of this amendment is straightforward: to ensure that key information is provided to the people that need it.

Stakeholders have told us that this information can be withheld, whether deliberately or through lack of clarity about responsibilities. That creates real risks. Those responsible for managing building safety cannot do so effectively without access to the right information. I'm bringing forward amendment 95 to close that gap. The duty is tightly framed, including that information requests must be necessary to comply with a requirement under the Bill or regulations made under it. I believe that it will help minimise the barriers that accountable persons may encounter in keeping their buildings safe.

Non-Government amendments 145 to 147 are seeking to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to make regulations that require an accountable person to keep relevant information and documents specified in the regulations—this is currently a power to make regulations and not a duty; to make it a requirement that regulations under section 45 must be made within 12 months of the date on which this Act received Royal Assent; and to place a duty on the Welsh Ministers to make regulations requiring an accountable person to give relevant information and documents specified in the regulation to other persons, whereas this is currently a power to make regulations and not a duty.

In respect of amendment 145, I have no objection to changing what is currently a power to make regulations about what information accountable persons must keep to a duty to make those regulations. Our policy intent here is to make regulations, and I agree that this amendment would bring greater clarity and certainty on that point, and I'm therefore supportive of amendment 145.

With regard to changing what is currently a power to make regulations about what information accountable persons must give to other persons into a duty, my concern here is that the effect of amendment 147 would be to require the same information to have been given to all the persons listed in the section, which would not be appropriate for some of the information documents that might be required to be given, and is not the outcome we would want. I would therefore urge Members of the committee to reject this amendment.

With regard to amendment 146, the pace of implementation will, I am sure, be subject to close scrutiny in the future, but that is true for all provisions within the Bill, and not this one alone. Of course, I am also keen to see implementation of the provisions of this Bill as soon as possible. However, this is a complex Bill, and there will be very many interdependencies when it comes to implementation, including the need to carry out full and informed consultation and develop guidance to sit alongside the new regime. I do not consider it necessary to impose strict deadlines for when those important regulations must be made.

I therefore ask the committee to reject amendments 146 and 147, and I urge Members to support amendments 95 and 145.

Diolch yn fawr. Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch yn fawr iawn am yr esboniad ynglŷn â'r tri gwelliant penodol yma. Mae hi'n bwysig, wrth gwrs, fod preswylwyr yn cael yr wybodaeth berthnasol, a bod hynny yn digwydd yn amserol. Efallai bod yna rai darnau o wybodaeth benodol sydd ddim yn addas i roi i bob person, ond dwi yn meddwl ei fod o'n bwysig fod gwybodaeth gynhwysfawr yn cael ei darparu. Dwi'n hapus i weithio efo chi ar unrhyw welliannau pellach y gallem ni weithio arnyn nhw ar gyfer Cyfnod 3, ond dwi'n meddwl bod gwelliant 145—ac rydych chi wedi dweud eich bod chi'n mynd i gefnogi hwnna—yn cryfhau'r sefyllfa. Mae gwelliant 146 hefyd, yn fy marn i, yn cryfhau'r sefyllfa, fel mae gwelliant 147, felly byddwn i'n awyddus i weld y rheini'n cael eu symud a'u pasio.

Diolch, Siân. The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

I think I've been clear in my opening remarks. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 95 is agreed.

Siân, amendment 145.

Symud.

The question is that amendment 145 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 145 is agreed.

Siân, amendment 146.

Symud.

The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 146. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against? There voted three in favour, three against. I therefore use my casting vote as Chair against, and that amendment is not agreed.

Siân, amendment 147.

Symud.

The question is that amendment 147 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will move to a vote on amendment 147. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against? There voted three in favour and three against. Once more, I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 147 is not agreed.

Group 9 relates to duties of residents and owners of residential units. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 9.

I move amendment 9 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This large group of amendments create a new duty to repair damage that could lead to the spread of fire within a building. We all know how important sound compartmentation is to protect residents from fire, and section 51 of the Bill already prohibits acts that jeopardise compartmentation, such as replacing fire doors with doors that offer inadequate fire resistance.

These amendments go further and require the repair of damage, including wear and tear, that creates a significant risk of fire spread or significantly increases an existing risk. This is important, as such damage can easily threaten everyone in the building if a fire breaks out. A common example would be the self-closer on a fire door that breaks or wears out after years of use and doesn't close the door anymore. That door cannot then be relied on to resist the spread of a fire. There were several examples of this happening in Grenfell Tower before the fire. Self-closers broke and were simply removed, which contributed significantly to the spread of the fire. Instead, they should have been repaired or replaced, which is what these amendments would require.

The new duty would lie on the person who has an existing obligation to repair the damaged item or area, or, if there's no such person, the owner of the residential unit. In a rented property, that is likely to be the landlord, while in leasehold properties, it may be the individual leaseholders, especially as regards the front doors of their flats. There is no question of imposing duties on persons who do not own damaged items or who are not already liable for maintaining them. These amendments also make changes to enable compliance with the new duty, including provisions for repairs access orders. They already include provision for inspection and enforcement, by the mechanisms that the Bill already contains. They include issuing a warning notice and contravention orders for breaches of this new duty. These amendments are an important addition to the resident protections that are in the Bill and I urge the committee to support them.

Diolch yn fawr. Does any committee member wish to speak on this group? No. Cabinet Secretary, is there anything that you would wish to add? No. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 9 is agreed.

I move amendment 10 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 10 is agreed.

I move amendment 11 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is whether that amendment be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 11 is agreed.

I move amendment 96 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 96 is agreed.

I move amendment 12 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 12 is agreed.

I move amendment 97 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 97 is agreed.

I move amendment 98 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Is there any objection to that amendment? No. Amendment 98 is agreed.

I move amendment 99 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 99 is agreed.

I move amendment 13 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Are there any objections to that amendment? There are not. Amendment 13 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 14 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 14 is agreed.

I move amendment 15 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 15 is agreed.

I move amendment 16 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 16 is agreed.

I move amendment 17 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 17 is agreed.

I move amendment 18 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 18 is agreed.

I move amendment 19 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 19 is agreed.

I move amendment 20 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 20 is agreed.

I move amendment 21 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 21 is agreed.

I move amendment 22 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 22 is agreed.

I move amendment 23 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 23 is agreed.

I move amendment 24 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 24 is agreed.

I move amendment 25 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 25 is agreed.

That takes us to group 10, reviews and appeals. The lead amendment is amendment 100.

I move amendment 100 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Section 57 of the Bill provides accountable persons and principal accountable persons who are defined in section 56 as affected persons with a right to request a review of certain decisions made by a building safety authority. Section 57(2) provides Welsh Ministers with a power to make regulations about the procedures by which persons may give notice requesting a review by the building safety authority of a reviewable decision.

Amendment 100 converts that power into a duty that is consistent with the changes we sought to make in sections 19(3) and 23(3) by amendments 90 and 92, which we brought forward in response to recommendation 10 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee.

Amendment 101 is consequential to amendment 100. It preserves the existing power to make regulations about documents that must be included with a notice, and about provision for the building safety authority to extend the deadline for making a notice. This is in recognition of the fact that it may not be necessary for an additional document to be included with a notice, or for provision to be made enabling the building safety authority to extend the deadline.

Amendment 102 amends section 57(7) so as to ensure that all affected persons must be given notice of the outcome of the review requested under section 57(1), not just the affected person who requested the review. The effect of this is that any affected person who may, under section 58, appeal against the outcome of a review will receive notice of the outcome of that review, thus enabling them to make an appeal. Amendments 103 to 105 in relation to section 57, and 106 to 107 in relation to section 59 are consequential to amendment 102. Therefore, I ask Members to support amendments 100 to 107.

Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. I see no other Members wishing to speak. If you have nothing to add, Cabinet Secretary, we will move to those amendments. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 100 is agreed.

I move amendment 101 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 101 is agreed.

I move amendment 102 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Is there any objection? No. Amendment 102 is agreed.

I move amendment 103 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Is there any objection? No. Amendment 103 is agreed.

I move amendment 104 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 104 is agreed.

I move amendment 105 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 105 is agreed.

I move amendment 106 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. That amendment is agreed.

I move amendment 107 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 107 is agreed.

That takes us to group 11, which relates to supplementary provisions about accountable persons and principal accountable persons. The lead amendment is amendment 108.

I move amendment 108 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. The purpose of amendment 108 is to ensure accountable persons are able, where necessary, to access non-residential parts of a regulated building, or non-residential parts lying wholly or partly below or above a regulated building where the access is required for certain specified purposes.

The amendment enables the residential property tribunal to make a non-residential premises access order where the correct procedure has been followed by the accountable person but access has not been given. To make such an order, the tribunal must be satisfied that it is necessary to make it for the purpose set out in the preceding notice. The effect of this amendment is to ensure that accountable persons are not obstructed from meeting their duties under the Bill and any regulations made under it due to barriers created by complex ownership or control arrangements over non-residential parts of buildings.

Amendment 109 is a technical amendment to ensure equivalence between the Welsh and English texts of the Bill.

Amendment 26 ensures that persons treated as accountable persons under section 35 are subject to the co-operation and co-ordination duty in section 60. For example, this would ensure that if a managing agent comes within section 35, then the relevant co-operation and co-ordination duties would apply to them also. By including section 35 duty holders in the co-operation and co-ordination duties, it will help to ensure the overall safety of a building, ultimately making our buildings safer for all who live and work in them.

Amendment 27 provides a power for the Welsh Ministers to make regulations that will enable the principal accountable person for a regulated building to recover relevant costs from accountable persons or a person who is treated as an accountable person by virtue of section 35. An example of a relevant cost could be preparing and revising a safety case report. The amendment will ensure that there is no duplication of service charge costs for leaseholders.

Amendment 63 is consequential to amendment 27 and ensures that any regulations made under the new power in amendment 27 will be subject to the Senedd approval procedure. I urge Members to support amendments 108, 109, 26, 27 and 63.

Diolch yn fawr. I see no other committee member indicating that they wish to speak. Is there anything you wish to add, Cabinet Secretary? No. The question is, then, that amendment 108 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 108 is agreed.

I move amendment 109 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 109 is agreed.

I move amendment 26 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 26 is agreed.

I move amendment 27 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? There are not. Amendment 27 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 28 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 28 is agreed.

I move amendment 29 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? There are not. Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed.

Group 12 relates to leases. The lead amendment is amendment 168, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to that lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. In terms of my amendment 168, this amendment would revise the legislation to make it explicit that the introduction of implied terms does not constitute a variation of the contract and, as a result, does not give rise to any requirement to serve a notice of variation or to reissue existing contracts. Their purpose is to place beyond doubt that the implication of terms under the Bill does not in and of itself trigger contractual re-documentation obligations. While the Bill implies new terms into existing contracts, it is important to know that the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 is founded on the principle that the occupation contract should operate as a complete and comprehensive record of the agreement between the landlord and the resident. Even though it is accepted that the underlying principle of the Bill will imply terms into existing contracts, it is felt that given the specific requirements of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, which places a duty on landlords to provide a clear and complete written statement of the contract, this interaction must be made explicit on the face of the Bill. Without such clarification, landlords risk being found in breach of their duty to provide a written statement, thereby inadvertently engaging the Act's compensation provisions.

I would argue that, if this ambiguity is not addressed, the consequences could be significant. For instance, it is possible that the courts may determine that the implication of terms amounts to a contractual variation requiring contracts to be issued under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act. If landlords have not reissued a contract, this could trigger the Act's compensation clause, potentially making up to two months' rent repayable across the sector. Alternatively, landlords may feel compelled to pre-empt this risk by reissuing contracts or serving notices of variation, resulting in a substantial and unnecessary administrative and financial burden. I believe, as do stakeholders, that greater clarity is therefore essential, both to ensure that landlords are able to understand and comply with their legal obligations and to support meaningful engagement with residents. The proposed amendments will provide landlords with flexibility to work collaboratively with TPAS and tenant representatives to develop clear, accessible information and resources. This approach would support residents in understanding the changes being introduced and help them feel safe and informed, rather than relying on the circulation of formal and complex legal documents that may hinder effective communication. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Joel. I see no other Members wishing to speak. Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Throughout the development of this Bill, we have worked to create duties that are proportionate and balanced. We have not wanted to create any unnecessary burdens on landlords where there isn't evidence of risk.

As it stands, amendment 168 inserts a new subsection into proposed section 30IA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which would mean the implied terms inserted by section 30IA do not constitute a change to or a variation of some types of occupation contracts. I understand the concerns that motivated amendment 168 and the desire for greater clarity around how the implied terms in section 61 will operate with occupation contracts. However, for the reasons I'll set out, I can't accept the amendment and would urge Members to think carefully about its consequences.

I do accept there is a degree of concern amongst landlords that, as currently drafted, there is some uncertainty as to whether the newly inserted implied terms would trigger a variation of contract for an occupation contract under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. I also recognise this uncertainty creates concern for landlords in terms of what they would need to do to comply with their duties under the renting homes regime, leading to uncertainty for occupation contract holders as to what could trigger a breach of their occupation contract. So, I do accept that clarity is needed.

However, I am concerned that Joel's amendment could actually create more uncertainty for landlords and residents. It would effectively set out in law that landlords could not be required to notify certain occupation contract holders of a variation in their occupation contracts. For example, the amendment does not extend the exception to fixed-term standard contracts. I'm not sure of the rationale for this, but I think it would introduce further inconsistency and confusion for both the landlords and occupation contract holders. So, I'm not convinced that it does bring the clarity that it was intending to achieve.

In addition, the effect of this amendment could mean residents are unaware of the implied terms and the risks associated with breaching them, and I don't believe this would be a desirable outcome. Occupation contracts are intended to provide contract holders with all the relevant information they need about their rights and obligations. Removing that mechanism weakens our ability to ensure fairness and transparency to residents. We need to ensure we use every method at our disposal to ensure that those who live in and manage these buildings understand the importance of building safety and their role in achieving that. For these reasons, I can't support the amendment Joel has tabled. That said, I do intend to bring forward a Government amendment at Stage 3, which will provide the clarity landlords are asking for, but which also reflects the principle that occupation contracts provide a complete and comprehensive record of the agreement between the landlord and occupation contract holder. I therefore encourage Members to reject amendment 168 and accept my intention to bring forward an alternative Stage 3 amendment.

Diolch yn fawr. Joel, would you wish to respond to this?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm grateful for the Cabinet Secretary's response to my proposed amendment, and I'm happy to withdraw it. And I look forward to seeing what the Government's alternative amendment is at Stage 3. Thank you, Chair.

You wish to withdraw amendment 168, Joel. Does any Member wish that amendment to be put to a vote? No. Then amendment 168 is withdrawn.

I move amendment 30 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 30 is agreed.

I move amendment 31 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 31 is agreed.

I move amendment 32 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 32 is agreed.

I move amendment 33 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 33 is agreed.

I move amendment 34 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 34 is agreed.

I move amendment 35 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 35 is agreed.

I move amendment 36 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 36 is agreed.

I move amendment 37 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does anybody object? No. Amendment 37 is agreed.

I move amendment 110 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 110 is agreed.

I move amendment 38 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 38 is agreed.

I move amendment 111 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 111 is agreed.

I move amendment 39 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 39 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 40 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 40 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 41 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 41 is agreed.

I move amendment 42 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 42 is agreed.

I move amendment 43 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 43 is agreed.

Siân, amendment 148.

Peidio symud.

Okay. Amendment 148 is not moved, which means that amendment 149 falls in any event.

I move amendment 112 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Then amendment 112 is agreed.

I move amendment 64 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will move to a vote on amendment 64. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. And any abstentions. With relation to amendment 64, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention. So, amendment 64 is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 65 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 65. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. And any abstentions. With regard to amendment 65, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention. Amendment 65 is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 66 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote on amendment 66. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. And any abstentions. With regard to amendment 66, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention. That amendment is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 67 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 67. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. And any abstentions. With regard to amendment 67, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention. It is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 68 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 68. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. And any abstentions. With regard to amendment 68, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention. It is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 69 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 69. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. With regard to amendment 69, there voted three in favour, with three against, and I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 69 is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 70 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 70. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Therefore, with regard to amendment 70, there voted three in favour, with three against, and I therefore use my casting vote against, and amendment 70 is not agreed.

I move amendment 71 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 71. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. And any abstentions. With regard to amendment 71, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention. It is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 72 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 72. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. And any abstentions. With regard to amendment 72, there are two in favour, three against and one abstention. It is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 73 in the name of Rhys ab Owen. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote on amendment 73. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. And any abstentions. There voted two in favour, three against and one abstention. Amendment 73 is therefore not agreed.

I move amendment 44 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 44 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 45 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 45 is agreed.

That takes us to group 13, fire safety in certain houses in multiple occupation. The lead amendment is amendment 169, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to that amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel.

Thank you, Chair, and as this is my last time to speak, I'd just like to reiterate my thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for her openness and support, and to also thank all those who've supported and engaged with me during the process of drafting these amendments.

Amendment 169 is a subsequent amendment that provides that the requirement for a new fire risk assessment is only triggered when a HMO is first adapted to meet the needs of disabled residents, rather than whenever there's been an adaption to any part of the relevant HMO. I hope this amendment will provide greater clarity and allay any concerns that tenants and landlords may have. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Joel. Does any other Member wish to speak on this group? No. Then I call the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and I'm happy to support Joel's amendment 169, which makes the same provisions for relevant HMOs as his amendment 154 does for regulated buildings. If amendment 169 is agreed, then the need for a new fire risk assessment would only arise when adaptations are first undertaken. This retains an appropriate safeguard and avoids creating undue costs for duty holders of relevant HMOs. As before, I agree that there is no good case for always conducting a further assessment after any further adaptations are made.

Amendments 113 and 117 are also equivalent to previous amendments discussed, but for relevant HMOs rather than regulated buildings. Amendment 113 is equivalent to amendment 95. As discussed for that amendment, the information or documents that can be required for the relevant people must be necessary for the duty holder of a relevant HMO to be able to meet their duties under the Bill. Amendment 117 is equivalent to amendment 108 for relevant HMOs. As before, it is necessary to ensure that, where necessary, duty holders of HMOs can access non-residential parts of a building above or below the HMO. This amendment will help ensure assessment and management duties can effectively be undertaken. Therefore, I urge the committee to support all of the amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Joel, did you wish to say anything further?

Just to thank the Cabinet Secretary for her support of my amendment.

Okay. So, the question is that amendment 169 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 169 is agreed.

I move amendment 113 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 113 is agreed.

I move amendment 114 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 114 is agreed.

I move amendment 115 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 115 is agreed.

I move amendment 116 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 116 is agreed.

I move amendment 117 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 117 is agreed.

I move amendment 118 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Are there any objections? No. Amendment 118 is agreed.

This takes us on to group 14, but I think this is an appropriate time to break for lunch. So, we will take a 45-minute lunch break and resume at 12:45.

Welcome back, everyone, to our Stage 2 proceedings with regard to our committee meeting today. We've reached group 14, which relates to building safety authorities and fire safety authorities. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 119.

I move amendment 119 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. There’s quite a lot to cover in relation to the amendments in this grouping, so I really appreciate you bearing with me as I take you through all of this.

Amendment 55 amends section 100 of the Bill so that functions of a building safety authority are not to be functions of its executive. As such, building safety authorities will, for example, be able to delegate functions to one another under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. This amendment is necessary to ensure that local authorities can delegate their building safety functions to one another where there is a conflict of interest, and I trust that committee members will support it.

Amendments 56, 57 and 58 relate to recommendation 1 of the LJC committee’s report. They amend section 102 of the Bill so that the Welsh Ministers are able to direct multiple building safety authorities to arrange to delegate functions to one of their number, rather than use multiple directions to achieve the same effect. This would make it easier for Welsh Ministers to use the direction-making power in section 102 to achieve the preferred delivery model, if that became necessary. I would therefore ask you to support them.

At this point, I think I need to reference the amendment tabled by Lee Waters, amendment 142. And I'm really grateful, Lee, for the discussions that we've had around this. This would limit the number of building safety authorities that can be established under the Bill, and define the areas they serve by linking them directly to the areas of the fire and rescue authorities in Wales.

As the committee knows, the Bill currently defines a building safety authority as a local authority. But I've been clear since introducing the Bill that I do not expect all 22 local authorities in Wales to exercise their building safety authority functions individually. My expectation has been that local authorities, through discussions with one another, and in conjunction with the Welsh Government, should determine the most efficient way of ensuring the effective discharge of these functions across Wales. This work is already under way.

In the event that this did not happen, the Bill already provides for Welsh Ministers to direct local authorities to delegate their functions to one another, so as to create a sustainable and effective delivery model. Indeed, amendments 56, 57 and 58 further facilitate that. I do, however, accept that there remains a degree of concern about whether a sustainable delivery model for the delivery of building safety authority functions will be created, hence the tabling of amendment 142. In the light of this ongoing concern, I am willing to support Lee Waters’s amendment. I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 142, although I do intend to give the matter some further consideration in discussions, and may table a further amendment at Stage 3.

Amendments 59, 60 and 61 together form a new framework within which the relationship between the building safety authority and fire safety authority, as enforcement authorities under the Bill, can be constructed. Amendment 59 places a new duty on the Welsh Ministers to issue guidance to both building safety and fire safety authorities on discharging their functions under the Bill and regulations made under it. It requires Welsh Ministers to consult on this guidance and the authorities to have regard to it. The amendment acknowledges and responds to recommendation 22 in this committee’s Stage 1 report, which called on the Welsh Government to provide clear guidance on the exercise of enforcement duties and powers.

Our intention is that this guidance would be combined, as necessary, with guidance on related enforcement functions under the housing health and safety rating system and the fire safety Order. This will help to bring greater clarity to roles and responsibilities under these different regimes and establish a firm basis on which future collaborative arrangements between different types of enforcement authority can be built. To ensure that the guidance meets their needs, I'd expect it to be co-developed with the enforcement authorities, utilising their expert knowledge and understanding of their existing regulatory and enforcement landscape.

Amendment 60 places a new duty on building safety authorities and fire safety authorities to co-operate in relation to the exercise of their functions under the Bill and the regulations made under it. Specifically, it requires authorities that have functions in relation to the same building or set of buildings—in other words, authorities that cover the same area of Wales—to co-operate.

The amendment is linked to amendment 59, and it provides that guidance made under that amendment may include guidance to building safety authorities and fire safety authorities on how they should comply with their duty to co-operate. We know that local authorities and fire and rescue authorities have plenty of experience of working together, and that good collaborative arrangements are often already in place, but we want to see those arrangements further improved and extended. The duty, underpinned by guidance, will provide greater clarity and certainty about the expectation placed on the enforcing authorities in relation to their co-operation with each other.

Amendment 61 provides a power to building safety authorities and fire safety authorities to share information with one another. The type of information that may be shared includes anything held in connection with the carrying out of their functions under the Bill, or any regulations made under it. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that vital information is shared between authorities, supporting the smooth functioning of the new building safety system established by the legislation. It complements the co-operation duty introduced by amendment 60.

We know that, where there is no explicit power to share information, uncertainty about what can or cannot be shared often proves to be a barrier to information sharing. This can lead to delays in, for example, enforcement action being taken, and this amendment seeks to remove that barrier, whether perceived or otherwise. Of course, while authorities are encouraged to share information to improve safety and efficiency, they must always do so within the boundaries of confidentiality and data protection law. The amendment provides for that. So, I urge committee members to support amendments 59, 60 and 61.

I will now talk briefly about amendment 50. This amendment introduces a new section that gives the building safety authority the power to issue fixed-penalty notices to the principal accountable person for category 1 or 2 buildings, if it considers that the person has committed a certain offence. A notice offers the principal accountable person the option to avoid prosecution for the offence by paying a set amount to the building safety authority within a specified period of time.

The four offences that are deemed appropriate for a fixed-penalty notice are those where it will be evident to the building safety authority that an offence has been committed; they are instances where either no information has been provided to the authority—that is, offences relating to registration and applying for or renewing a building certificate—or they are instances where the offence is considered irrefutable, namely failing to display a building certificate in a conspicuous place or displaying a building certificate while a special measure order is in place.

Thank you. Lee Waters.

Thank you. I just want to speak briefly to amendment 142, which is meant to reflect the scrutiny we've had in this committee as the Bill has gone through, and I think the consensus that I certainly felt that having 22 building authorities reflecting the 22 local authorities was not appropriate. And even though, as the Minister said, there were other provisions in the Bill to consolidate that with ministerial direction, it still allowed the possibility of going back to 22.

So, the intention of the amendment is to rule out that possibility and to reflect the consensus that has emerged within the sector of having three building authorities that mirror the fire and rescue authorities in Wales by allocating one county council or borough council in the area to act as the building safety authority for that area. And I thank the Minister and officials for working with me to try and find the best way forward to give expression to that. As she said, if, over the next period, on reflection, this amendment needs altering, then there's the option of coming back to it at Stage 3, but I'm not convinced that that's going to be necessary. So, I hope that members of the committee will feel that this reflects the discussions we've had to date.

Okay. Thank you. Any other committee members wish to speak on this group? No. Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Yes, I just want to thank Lee again for his comments in relation to amendment 142 and ask Members to support this amendment.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Okay. The question then is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 119 is agreed.

I move amendment 46 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 46 is agreed.

I move amendment 120 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 120 is agreed.

I move amendment 121 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 121 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 122 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 122 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 123 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 123 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 124 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 124 is agreed.

I move amendment 125 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 125 is agreed.

I move amendment 126 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed. Does any Member object? I see no objections. Amendment 126 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 127 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 127 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 128 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. So, amendment 128 is agreed.

I move amendment 49 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 49 is agreed.

I move amendment 129 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed. Are there any objections? There are not. So, amendment 129 is agreed.

I move amendment 150—. Sorry, I move amendment 50 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 50 is agreed.

I move amendment 140 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. So, amendment 140 is agreed.

I move amendment 141 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 141 is agreed.

We reach group 15: functions of the Welsh Ministers. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 51.

I move amendment 51 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 51 provides for a duty to be placed on Welsh Ministers to prepare, publish and keep under review a strategy for engaging with residents and others on matters relating to the Bill and its implementation. It requires Welsh Ministers to set out the matters, including any proposed regulations and guidance, on which they intend to consult, details on how the consultation will be conducted, and any organisations or other bodies representing the interests of residents that will be consulted.

I'm acutely aware of the need to ensure that residents have a voice in all building safety matters that affect them. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are existing provisions relating to engagement with residents on operational matters. For example, the duty on accountable persons and principal accountable persons to engage with residents in category 1 buildings and the resident complaint process requirements for all regulated buildings.

But I want residents and their representatives to have a voice in shaping the regulations that will underpin the Bill and the guidance that will assist in compliance. Recommendation 3 from the legislation and justice committee report echoed this in calling for active duties on the Government to consult with residents in relation to the development of guidance and secondary legislation where relevant and appropriate. Amendment 51 responds to that recommendation by requiring Welsh Ministers to set out how they intend to consult and what they intend to consult on in a published strategy.

It also requires Welsh Ministers to take account of any representations they receive from residents and others about the content of that strategy in deciding whether it needs to be revised. Allowing the strategy to be revised will enable it to evolve and remain relevant as circumstances change or as we learn from engagement. Overall, the amendment aims to ensure that there's a robust and transparent approach to resident engagement, and I urge the committee to support it.

Amendments 130 to 133 relate to recommendations 12 and 13 of the LJC committee report. They relate to the issuing of guidance to those discharging duties under the Bill. I do recognise that we must ensure that all those who require guidance do in fact receive guidance that supports them to comply with the duties. With that in mind, amendment 130 changes the power of Welsh Ministers under section 98(1) to issue or approve guidance into a duty to do so, where that is appropriate. Although I would always expect the Welsh Ministers to exercise a power to issue guidance where it is necessary to do so, adding this requirement underscores the importance of doing so.

Amendments 131 to 133 are consequential to amendment 130, and the principal effect is to preserve the specific requirement on Welsh Ministers set out in 98(2) to issue or approve guidance to those who have duties under the Bill in relation to the assessment of the fire safety risks.

I commend these amendments to the committee and I urge Members to support amendments 51 and 130 to 133.

Diolch yn fawr. Does any other committee member wish to speak in this group? No. Nothing you wish to add, Cabinet Secretary?

No.

The question then is that amendment 51 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 51 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 130 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 130 is agreed.

I move amendment 131 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 131 is agreed.

I move amendment 132 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 132 is agreed.

I move amendment 133 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 133 is agreed.

Group 16 relates to the duties of responsible persons under the fire safety Order. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 52.

I move amendment 52 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This group of amendments primarily focuses on how the provisions in the fire safety Order will work alongside the new provisions within the Bill. This will be particularly important for mixed-use buildings that contain residential and commercial premises.

Amendment 52 extends the duty on responsible persons in article 22C of the fire safety Order. The amendment requires those persons to co-operate with anyone they are aware of who is a section 35 duty holder under the Bill. The aim of this amendment is to strengthen collaboration, particularly in mixed-use buildings, between those responsible for residential and non-residential areas. This amendment will, for example, require a shop owner for a non-residential unit below a regulated building to co-operate with a managing agent who is identified as a section 35 duty holder when it is necessary to do so. Without this legal obligation to co-operate, there is a risk of fragmented safety management across mixed-use buildings.

Amendment 53 provides that breaches of the new article 22C duty under the fire safety Order are not an offence under the Order, as article 22C will be enforced under the Bill. The amendment is related to amendments 120 and 122, both discussed previously in group 14, and amendment 137.

Amendments 134 to 137 are related to each other. Amendment 135 inserts new articles 22D, which is giving information to accountable persons, and 22E, giving information to HMO duty holders, into the fire safety Order. The effect is to require, in certain circumstances, responsible persons to provide information or documents to accountable persons and HMO duty holders.

Amendments 134, 136 and 137 are consequential amendments to 135, providing that enforcement provisions under the fire safety Order do not apply to breaches of the new articles 22C, 22D, 22E duty, as those articles will be enforced under the Bill.

Amendment 134 provides that the interpretation provisions in article 22C apply to articles 22D and 22C also. Collectively, this group of amendments will help to ensure responsible persons under the fire safety Order will co-operate and provide information where it is necessary in order to help keep people in regulated buildings and relevant HMOs safe. So I urge Members to support amendments 52, 134, 135, 136, 53 and 137.

Diolch yn fawr. Does any other committee member wish to speak on this group? No. Is there anything you would wish to add?

Only to thank the committee for their engagement and their detailed work on this Bill.

Thanks very much to you, Cabinet Secretary, and your officials for your engagement with the committee as well.

The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 52 is agreed.

I move amendment 134 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 134 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 135 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 135 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 136 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 136 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 53 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 53 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 137 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 137 is agreed.

Lee, amendment 142.

I move, Chair.

Amendment 142 has been moved. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 142 is agreed.

I move amendment 55 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 55 is agreed.

I move amendment 56 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 56 is agreed.

I move amendment 57 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 57 is agreed.

I move amendment 58 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 58 is agreed.

I move amendment 59 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Are there any objections? There are not. Therefore, amendment 59 is agreed.

I move amendment 60 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 60 is agreed.

I move amendment 61 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 61 is agreed.

I move amendment 62 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Are there any objections? There are not. Therefore, amendment 62 is agreed.

I move amendment 138 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed. Are there any objections? There are not. Therefore, amendment 138 is agreed.

I move amendment 139 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 139 is agreed.

I move amendment 63 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 63 is agreed.

Earlier in our proceedings, Rhys ab Owen indicated during this meeting that if his amendments 64 to 73 were not agreed, he would not wish for his amendments 74 to 81 to be moved. As his amendments 64 to 73 were not agreed, I do not intend to move amendments 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81. Does any other member of the committee wish to move any or all of those amendments? I see that you do not.

I move amendment 82 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Does any Member object? I see that there are no objections. Therefore, amendment 82 is agreed.

That disposes of all of our Stage 2 amendments today. I would very much like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and her officials for their attendance today. You will, of course, be sent a transcript to check for accuracy in the usual way. I'd also like to thank all committee members and committee staff for their support for these Stage 2 proceedings and all of the external stakeholders that have engaged with committee throughout the process.

That completes our Stage 2 proceedings. Stage 3 begins tomorrow. The relevant dates for Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course. Standing Orders make provision for the Cabinet Secretary to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings. Thank you all very much. Diolch yn fawr.