The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on an update following the Grenfell Tower fire. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement. Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Llywydd. Llywydd, thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the actions being taken by Welsh Government, landlords, and fire and rescue services in Wales, in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I am committed to keeping Members updated on our actions, and I’m sure Members will agree that this is not a party political issue, but one of concern to us all, and of course, in many cases, our constituents. Accordingly, I briefed opposition spokespeople this morning, and will provide regular updates to Members as the situation evolves.

Llywydd, our immediate priority, both for the Welsh Government and social landlords, was to ensure that the particular Reynobond cladding implicated in Grenfell Tower was not fitted to Welsh high-rise tower blocks. I reported last week that no cladding of this type was found. Our focus moved to the aluminium composite material, ACM, in general, and this has been identified in seven blocks. This cladding has been tested. Clearly, the situation demands close co-operation by a range of agencies and services. Resident safety and peace of mind is the very highest priority for all organisations involved with this issue, and I am pleased to say that we’re working together effectively. Along with others, the Welsh Government is absolutely committed to taking a measured and proportionate response that recognises the importance of tenants’ safety and peace of mind.

Joyce Watson took the Chair.

To understand the experiences of those living in the affected properties, yesterday, I visited tenants in Swansea, where I had some very positive and insightful discussions, which will be helpful in shaping our activity as we move forward. I was also able to explain the steps being taken to ensure that the high-rise tower blocks are safe. I was able to hear from tenants, first hand, what their concerns are surrounding the safety of the cladding material, and they made it very clear that they appreciated the advice provided by the landlords.

I am, naturally, anxious to deal with the understandable concerns of the tenants as quickly as possible. It is essential that Government action should be based on the best possible professional advice. Our excellent fire and rescue services remain closely involved in supporting landlords and in ensuring that all proper and reasonable steps are taken to safeguard the tenants. Their professional and measured approach to risk management and fire safety is crucial. Indeed, I believe the only subsequent evacuation to date in England, from the Chalcots estate, occurred following a joint inspection of the estate by the London Fire Brigade and a decision that some of the blocks needed to be evacuated on a temporary basis.

I am pleased to say that Swansea has implemented a comprehensive set of measures following their test results. This action is fully in line with the DCLG guidance, which was updated on 22 June. This sets out mitigating measures to be implemented, as appropriate, without delay, where it is determined that insulation materials within ACM cladding are unlikely to be compliant with the current building regulations. The measures range from checking fire-risk status—and in Swansea’s case, an assessment has been conducted very recently—and ensuring residents fully understand emergency fire procedures, particularly the meaning of ‘stay put’, to the effective implementation of preventative measures, which include checking the compliance of insulation or other materials that form the facade of the building.

The local authority is in regular contact with the residents and has fire wardens on site to reassure tenants. The Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service has confirmed that it undertook fire safety audits at both Clyne Court in Sketty and Jeffreys Court in Penlan on 21 June of this year. The fire safety arrangements were found to be satisfactory against the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, where it applies. Similarly, a full range of risk management and mitigation measures are in place in Newport—again, fully in accordance with DCLG guidance. More generally, we continue to be in close contact, again, with the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.

The Welsh Government will, of course, continue to stay in close touch and work with Swansea and Newport, and all other local authorities affected, as further guidance and advice emanate from the UK expert group. I’ve also established a Welsh fire safety advisory group, chaired by Des Tidbury, my Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser and Inspector for Wales. That group will meet for the first time this week. To ensure consistency and effective communication, there needs to be a strong and effective relationship between the two groups, so I’ve asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that Des Tidbury sits as a member of the UK expert group also. I expect to hear a response from his shortly.

As I have explained, our primary focus has been, and remains for the time being, on high-rise tower blocks within the social housing sector. We are, though, now engaged with local authorities and the WLGA to identify all private sector residential high-rise blocks. We are working to ensure that we can identify the freeholders and managing agents of these blocks and provide them with appropriate advice and guidance, in line with what we have provided to the social housing sector. My expectation is that, where an owner identifies that a residential high-rise building has, or is indeed suspected of having, ACM cladding, they will send samples for testing and take the same additional precautionary measures as social housing landlords have taken.

All of this activity, geared to ensuring we can improve safety measures and give reassurance, only happens with the full support and engagement of our partners across the piece. I would like to thank them for their continued effort. As I said at the outset, this is a fast-moving issue, and I will ensure that Members are kept fully informed and updated. Thank you.

Can I welcome this statement from the Cabinet Secretary and can I thank him for the briefing he gave opposition spokespeople this morning and the promise of further briefings from him and his officials? I do think it’s important we are kept informed of, as he said, what is a rapidly changing situation. Can I ask him, in terms of the immediate assessments that have been carried out, what conclusions have been reached about the role of cavity spaces, which, I understand, were key in the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower? This is where there is a gap, obviously, between the cladding and the main structure of the tower block, and this constituting a key risk. Are similar cavity spaces present in the Welsh tower blocks that have been inspected? Under what circumstances would the Minister advise social landlords to remove the cladding? I do understand there may be a danger that if cladding is just removed, then even more dangerous and inflammable material could be exposed beneath. Are there circumstances, therefore, under which the Minister anticipates relocation being an option if immediate assurances of safety cannot be established? I’m also advised that the cladding material on Grenfell Tower and—I don’t know, but I assume—the other cladding materials that are present in Wales, one of the difficulties with them is that they are designed to act as rain screens, which unfortunately means that when the fire service attempts to control and extinguish fires, they’re much less effective in the action they take as the water is being repelled. Obviously, containing and extinguishing fires is key to the general fire resilience of these buildings. Is there any difference in the cladding material acting as a screen in Wales, as seems to have been the case in London?

Cabinet Secretary, many tower blocks are in the private sector or are public buildings such as schools and hospitals. How are the assessments of these buildings being made? Does he have any further information for the Assembly this afternoon on this aspect of the challenge? Finally, how are the latest findings and the advice that emerges that was based on these findings being disseminated to tenants in a usable, reassuring but clear way, to private landlords and management companies that run many private blocks of flats, and also to those running schools and hospitals? Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your questions, David Melding. Llywydd, if I may—several questions there. First of all, on the issue around cavity spaces, the Member raises issues around that. I would be reluctant to offer a view on that in the prematurity of the public inquiry into that. I do think there were several aspects of the Grenfell Tower that appear to have significant factors in contribution to the fire system breakdown, whether that be compartmental or actual exterior failings, but I wouldn’t like to pre-empt that. Of course, if cavity spaces are part of that process, then we need to look at that very carefully in the advice we receive.

In terms of the cladding and the advice in terms of relocation, and giving advice to remove cladding, I’m taking the advice from the independent advisory group from the UK—the Department for Communities and Local Government. These are professionals, and I don’t think this is a political decision. This should be based upon evidence and their advice. If they suggest that the removal of cladding is the best option, then we will seek to remove that cladding and we’ll talk about the implications of finances after that. But the Member is right to also say that just removing the aluminium cladding of a building can pose a further risk by exposing the insulation process. So, we have to be measured in the processes that we are going to implement if we do do that. Also, the issue is that what the tests have been conducted on has been part of a composite of the unit. So, only a sample to provide whether the substance contained in the sample was flammable or combustible, whereas I think the next stages we possibly need to be looking at are about the whole-system approach in terms of where we’re able to test a whole system to see whether the activity of that panel is safe and complies with British standards and the regulations, as was thought when it was installed. I think that could be the next stages that we move to—giving confidence to the people who live in those premises that the fire services have both checked and continue to work with tenants of the affected areas to give them reassurance about the safety implications of the fire systems that are in place.

On the issue of Grenfell Tower, again, the Member raises issues about building regulations. I’d also raise a point of caution in terms of, again, understanding what the true effects are of testing. At this time, we are aware that our buildings have cladding installed that complies with building regulations, and therefore if the building regulations are wrong, then we have to have a review of that. I’ve got a meeting again with Lesley Griffiths in terms of the detail of that, but also listening to the advisory panel in terms of what their thoughts are on this.

On other buildings—education, health and public buildings, leisure, stadiums—we have started the activity of asking for feedback from all of the relevant agencies. I’ve written to all Cabinet colleagues. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education has written to local authorities to ask around school buildings and other university buildings. My primary concern on a risk basis assessment is, first of all, the high-rise blocks of flats, and then I think we need to move to where people reside of an evening, cook, and there are, therefore, some student accommodation that should have a high priority in making sure that we are absolutely certain about the safety mechanisms around those.

The other point of interest is in terms of the private sector, which is a little bit more difficult in terms of how we identify them. And I’m working with Ken Skates’s department to look at what connections we have with private sector landlords and larger companies, but also for the Rent Smart Wales team, with the registration of landlords, to use the data around that to contact individuals around property management again. We do have powers of intervention, but there are lots of powers with other authorities in terms of non-compliance. So, if a private landlord was not to seek to comply with sample testing et cetera, then the local authority, or the fire service, indeed, could ask and require that with prohibition notices. So, we do have things in place subject to the need to do that.

As you say, Cabinet Secretary, I think it is important to have clarity in terms of exactly what is being tested, so if just the 4mm or so of external cladding is being sent for testing, then it obviously doesn’t include the wider building external wall system. So, I hear what you say in terms of perhaps moving on to that wider, more comprehensive and significant testing. So, I wonder if you could say what the process is of making that move. You have your external panel, but, at the moment, obviously, it’s UK Government and BRE that are conducting tests. So, is that a suggestion you might make, advised by your external panel, and it would then be a matter for the UK Government to come to a decision?

And will it be possible to consider the unique construction techniques and safety measures in place in each building, because I know some registered social landlords in Wales do feel that it’s absolutely critical that that is the approach? So, for example, where there are systems in place that involve fire breaks, so that there would be materials on each floor within the ventilation shaft between the insulation and the external cladding, if there were those fire breaks in place that expand in the case of a fire to seal off, as it were, the so-called chimney effect, that might well be a matter that should be considered as to the overall safety of those external wall systems. So, I do feel that there is a lack of clarity in many people’s minds, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of exactly what’s being tested, as to whether that is the best test that can really give us a picture of the safety measures in place, and provide necessary reassurance to residents.

The other question I’d like to ask is: will you continue to work with registered social landlords in Wales, and others, to make sure that tenants are properly involved and are properly communicated with to ensure safety, but also to provide necessary reassurance? Because I think, whatever view we take of recent events, it will always be the case that there will be that need to involve residents and communicate with residents if we really are going to have the best safety systems and, indeed, proper reassurance.

And just finally, I’m sure you would join me, Cabinet Secretary, in urging responsible media reporting of these matters, because I know, again, there is concern amongst registered social landlords in Wales and, indeed, tenants that some of the media reporting is unhelpful in terms of helping us ensure that necessary safety and reassurance.

I thank John Griffiths for his questions. I’ll take his last point first and, I think, his most pertinent, actually. The people we really need to think about here are the residents of these blocks, and that’s what our primary concern must be, both in making sure that there is a reality of safety but also that the perception of safety is addressed in terms of what their views are. I will not be making a statement to this Chamber prior to informing residents of what the issues are. I don’t think it’s fair for media outlets to allow residents to be unnecessarily worried, and they should be always contacted by the landlords first, and then I will, of course, inform the Assembly of the actions taken by landlords.

There are two areas the Member raised questions on. First of all, the sample position. The sample was based upon the requirements of DCLG advice and of BRE’s testing facilities, and they’ve been consistent. However, the consistency of the samples is that they’ve all failed, which would indicate to me that the question arises about what exactly we are testing for here, and I think that’s what led me to understand what the panel is now considering about whether a full-system approach to testing is important. The Member raises a very important issue that most of the buildings are very unique in the style of build and what constitutes their fire safety. So, that has to be taken into consideration in the round as well, about what the systems are. That’s why I said earlier on to David Melding, in terms of the Grenfell Tower, that I think there were several issues that had an effect on the severity of the fire there, not just the cladding element of this, and the potential breaches of other fire regulations in the whole-system approach is something that we need to be mindful of. The very simple analogy is that—. In the same way as testing is taking place, we know there is flammability and combustibility in the small amount of sample that was tested, but, in a system approach, that may not be an issue. In the same way as we drive a car with eight gallons of petrol in it, and, on its own, petrol is very flammable and dangerous, but, within a system approach, it’s safe to drive a vehicle, and this could be exactly the same as this composite material within a structure that is considered as a whole-system approach. So, we are awaiting advice from DCLG on that, and if the advice comes for further system testing, that’s what we will apply. If that advice doesn’t come forward and the advice is, ‘This is dangerous, it needs to be removed’, we will follow that advice as well.

I’m not making, as I said, any political decisions on this; this is based upon evidence of the experts, and I will rely on them to give me, along with confidence for residents, the processes that need to be in place. But I will keep the Member apprised of the issues that are raised with me on a daily basis.

I’d like to raise the issue of hotels, in particular, with you Cabinet Secretary. I’d be grateful if you could let me know if you have, or you are prepared to, look at changing regulations into banning designated smoking in hotel rooms. A constituent has raised this issue with me over a large period of time. One, there’s a safety issue, but, two, beyond this statement today, of course, is the issue of occupying that room after somebody who has been in there smoking. I appreciate that’s beyond today’s statement. Other constituents have also highlighted a number of examples of breaches of fire regulations over about six months, so it does seem like an appropriate time to raise this with you today. So, the two issues are: one, the banning of designated smoking in hotel rooms; and your views on a better inspection regime, particularly in hotels.

The Member raises two interesting points. I think it is something for the future to consider in terms of, initially, smoking in hotel rooms in general. The other issue about regulation of hotels is: I think what’s important here is that we don’t get pushed into a false sense of insecurity and doing something for the wrong reason. It has to be based upon the evidence provided. Can I give you assurance? I spoke to the chief fire officer yesterday and he said to me that the last thing we want to do here is tell people that it’s unsafe to live in tower blocks, because it isn’t. Providing all the procedures are in place, with fire breaks and fire safety inspections—that they are not breached; they are intact—tower blocks are safe areas to live. He says that the issue of Grenfell has brought to the forefront some real issues that need to be addressed about inspection regimes et cetera.

Installations is another one that was raised with me today by Dawn Bowden, in fact—about how the installations of some service providers may breach the fire integrity of these panel units by drilling et cetera, and installation of aerials or dishes. That’s something that I’m going to take up with Lesley Griffiths’s regulation team, to make sure that that isn’t a problem. And if it is a problem, we need to regulate around that. So, this has raised issues again, but the overall principle is: generally, tower blocks are safe, but we have to ensure that the cladding that’s been placed on these buildings—either it’s fit for purpose or it isn’t, and we’re learning about that every day.

Thank you for the meeting alongside David Melding this morning. As Plaid Cymru spokesperson for housing—although you wouldn’t realise it today—I just wanted to say, in relation to your point about this not being political, I totally agree, but I think that the Government should expect Assembly Members of all parties to be able to scrutinise effectively, and that is part of our role in doing so. The same with the media: I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to take a view on what the media does. I would be assured that if you tell the tenants and the landlords before it gets to the media, then there would be no problem with them finding out in that way. In fact, I would assume that you would be able to speak to everybody involved before any of the media gets to speak to tenants.

I wanted to ask, with regard to the relationship that you have with the fire service—you’ve indicated that they have put mitigating measures in place, such as fire marshals and so forth. I want to be assured from you, in writing, possibly, whether they’ve said that they are comfortable with the current setup, therefore comfortable with the fact that the cladding is not being removed, but the mitigating measures that they’re putting in place instead are going to be robust enough to ensure that tenants are safe if there is a situation of risk at those flats. I think we all need to be assured of that here today.

With regard to fire safety also, I need to be assured that there’s capacity within the system for the fire and rescue service to be able to deal with this. So, for example, if the UK panel advises that interim measures are needed on the cladding, do we have enough capacity in the system here for those authorities to take forward action? You hinted at the fact that the UK advisory panel would be potentially recommending whole-system testing, rather than sample testing of cladding. Can you clarify what that means in practice, and will you be going ahead with such testing here in Wales, or will it not be for you to decide, but they will be part of a sampling process across the UK?

I thank you for the information on keeping us updated with other bodies. I’m wanting to understand how you’re going to collate all of the information from the Cabinet Secretary for health, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Cabinet Secretary for economy, so that AMs can be assured that all that information is going to a central location. I have been told by some Plaid Cymru AMs that they’re finding it difficult to find out information from Hywel Dda health board as to what’s happening with the testing that they’ve carried forth on their systems. If we could get some clarification, that would be good.

You said that you’re going to be issuing guidance to local authorities in relation to private landlords. Are you satisfied this is enough, and what powers do you have to intervene should it not be something that they are receptive towards?

With regard to—my final question—building regulations, if the UK advisory panel does confirm that testing of cladding is conducted to a higher safety requirement than current Welsh building and fire safety regulations require, do you agree that this could mean taking a larger look at building and fire safety regulations? How will you decide whether or not to take a closer look at that aspect of the situation? I understand from the new Government of Wales Act that you will have powers over building regulations as a Government in future, apart from, sadly, the Crown Estate, which will include airports, will include shipping ports and will include nuclear power stations—they will be reserved matters. So, how are you going to be able to regulate or to legislate in this area if you don’t have all the tools that you may need in future?

Thank you for your questions. First of all, I am very comfortable with the scrutiny that takes place in the Chamber by yourself or any other Members on this issue. I am very clear that I do believe that this shouldn’t be partisan; it is about constituents who we all share an affiliation to and making sure the safety of this is paramount. So, I don’t mind the scrutiny in any case.

Can I say, in answer to specifics around the fire service, that I have spoken on several occasions to the senior officers in my team? I’m on call with them on a regular basis, alongside the landlords as well. Swansea council have, of their own volition, introduced fire marshals 24/7 on those blocks of flats. That’s aside from the fire service, and this is based on advice from DCLG. Everything that DCLG has advised in terms of the fire safety process, Swansea and Newport are implementing—either have implemented or are implementing in that process, and they are working alongside the fire service to deliver that.

I will look to see if I can qualify the discussions we’ve had by writing to the Member. I’m aware of that. I would hope that my word is good enough today for the Chamber, but I also respect that the Member may wish to see that in writing, and I will have a look to see if I can respond to her in that state.

The capacity of the fire service, I am aware, is okay. They have told me again—this was one of the questions I had in the discussion with them about the ability to resource the issue around this—that there are no issues. In fact, they were very proactive in making sure that they were going to use staff, alongside local authority staff or landlord staff, to work with tenants, to give them confidence. I think they’re a much more trusted source than politicians telling everybody it’s going to be okay. When the fire service says it, I think it’s just more of a trusted voice.

Just for clarification to the Member, when I said the issue around testing and then a whole-system approach to testing—this is not a decision of mine. This will be based upon advice from the DCLG group. If they move from sample testing to full panel testing, then, of course, that’s where we want to be, as well. I think that gives, actually, a truer result of the effects of fire safety on a building when you have a whole-system test, but if they do not recommend that and they recommend something else, that route I will take also. I will not be making a decision other than what the recommendations are from the DCLG advisory group. These are specialists in fire safety, and I will listen to those words of advice carefully.

In terms of activity across Government, I am the lead Minister on this, irrespective of building regulations or fire safety or health or otherwise. I am the Minister leading on this particular issue. I will have a conversation with my team in respect of the issues you raised with one of the health boards. If you could provide me with more detail about that, that would be really useful.

This is really fast moving. To do a full assessment of buildings at risk for organisations—with this material on them—is something we weren’t expecting. So it is taking a little bit of time, but I’m hoping that co-ordination can be coming together on that, and I will make a point of informing the Member of exactly how that is going.

On other actions we have in place, I mentioned earlier on to David Melding, with regard to what we can do if things aren’t happening on the ground, that we have the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which can be used regarding common areas of blocks of flats et cetera. We also have the role of fire service safety checks, again, where they can put prohibition notices on these areas, which can stop either the trading or the ability for them to rent properties. We can stop that through Rent Smart Wales as well. So, there are lots of actions we can take, and I am considering what powers I have also in terms of this field, but I will let Members know more detail about that.

A final point, if I may, Llywydd, on building regulations. We do have powers to amend building regulations already and we have a building regulation advisory group. But, again, I will not be seeking to amend building regulations, or the Minister won’t be, unless we’ve got evidence provided to suggest that we should. The current stated position is that the units that have been installed are compliant to building regulation standards. Now, if they are wrong or they require changing, then we will have a full assessment, again, in line with the UK Government. These panels don’t just spread from Wales and England. These are used on international buildings all over the world, so we have to be very cautious in our approach: not a knee-jerk reaction to changing building regulations because it feels right. We’ve got to base this on evidence on what is right by the expert panel.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement and thank you for all the work you’re doing with other public services to identify whether we have a problem in Wales and, where we do, to rectify it. I agree it’s absolutely important that we don’t overreact on this, and I’m confident that my local authority is doing what is necessary to identify whether we have a problem, and, if we do, to rectify the situation.

I’m pleased to see that you have also asked local authorities to identify freeholders and managing agents of private sector tower blocks, because I’ve got many of them in the city centre of Cardiff. I just wanted to probe a bit further. You say in your statement your expectation is that where an owner identifies a residential high-rise building has, or is suspected of having, ACM cladding, that they will do the right thing and send samples for testing. What if they don’t? What are your powers in that regard? And in relation to the obligations of landlords and managing agents of private blocks in relation to regular inspections of the common areas of private sector flats, what sort of record is there of where and who has actually carried out these obligations? How do residents get to find out when a fire safety check has actually been carried out of these communal areas? How can the fire service—our excellent fire service—hope to target those who are not complying if we don’t have a complete record?

Really useful questions from the Member today, and I thank her for her comments, particularly around the fire and rescue services and their ability to act on the issues that she’s raised.

Can I first of all take the issue around testing and private sector testing? We are working with local authorities to identify the individuals at the first point, and they will be given guidance on what we expect to happen. I’ve yet to find an agent that doesn’t wish to comply with that process, but it is early days, and I expect there may be one or two that may wish to push the boundaries—if that’s what they seek to do. But there are powers within the Building Act 1984. So, under the Housing Act 2004, in response to identifying a hazard, the local authority has a range of enforcement options. Taking emergency remedial action under section 40 and making an emergency prohibition order under section 43 to prohibit the use of the premises are all actions that can be taken by local authorities should they so wish, in addition to the fire service with their risk assessments on fire safety and prohibition notices as well. So, we do believe that there are enough powers to deal with the issue once we’ve identified a non-compliance in the system, if that is to be the case. But I can’t see any reason why a person wouldn’t want to move to ensure that their building is safe.

There are regular intervals for fire safety inspection tests, and the fire service hold those data. I will write to the Member and put a copy in the library of the detailed process in terms of fire safety regulations and checks for buildings of this type so that the Member is confident in the response, and also other Members can have access to that.

Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Minister, for the statements that you’ve made on this subject so far to keep us updated on the measures that are being taken. I feel swift action was necessary, both to investigate potential fire risks and also to alleviate the fears of people living in high-rise blocks. As you stated, peace of mind is an important factor here. A lot is evidently being done. I think linking up what we’re doing here in Wales with what they’re doing elsewhere in the UK is important. So, the appointment of Des Tidbury to the UK expert group would be a good move.

I’m also encouraged that your investigations are moving away from social housing, where they understandably began, into encompassing also private blocks, and also that you’re extending your scope to non-residential buildings. You did talk about the building regulations side of things. I know that that issue has been raised. I’ve noticed, in the national press, there has been some questioning of the building regulations as they apply in England. Possibly, the same may apply in Wales. There are suggestions that changes made in recent years may make those processes less robust in assessing possible fire risk. I know this is an ongoing investigation of yours, so I’m not expecting a definitive answer now, but if you would just bear that aspect in mind and keep that with you as you go forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I’m not aware that there was a formal question there, Llywydd, but I do recognise the comments made by the Member, and we’ll take that on board.

Finally, Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, we spoke this morning about the issues that I raised with you, but can I just say I was very pleased, when I visited the only high-rise tower in my constituency, which is in Merthyr Tydfil, that the cladding on that building is not of the ACM type, but is of the Rockwell type, which means that it is fire retardant and it’s covered by a render finish? The flats there also have sprinklers in every dwelling.

The issues, which I raised with you—I’m very pleased with your response on those because it was a particular concern, when it was raised with me, that companies like BT and Sky can come into a block of flats without the landlord knowing, without their permission, and can drill through fire barriers to install phones and satellite dishes, rendering those fire barriers less effective in the process, and then the landlord has little or no chance of getting those companies to come back and to reinstate. So, I’m very pleased that you are going to look at that. As an absolute minimum, I guess, those companies should be compelled to seek the permission of the landlord to go into that building, and agree with them what the works and the reinstatement of those works should look like.

But the other issue that was also raised with me was those leaseholders, i.e. those people who, under right to buy, have bought units within tower blocks and are not subject to the same conditions that tenants are in terms of notifying what is the building owner how many people are living in that accommodation and whether they store flammable equipment in there, or potentially dangerous equipment like oxygen tanks and so on. Tenants are required to do that, leaseholders are not, and yet they’re in the block and so provide the same kind of potential danger. So, in addition to looking at how these outside companies can come in and drill into the firebreaks and so on, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, if you could also look at whether there are ways in which leaseholders can be compelled to disclose to building owners information that they may need to be able to assess a fire risk in that building?

I thank the Member for the discussion I had with her this morning, and also the issue she raised with me this afternoon. The issue about the third party element of this is something I will take up with Lesley Griffiths in terms of building regulations and the compliance methods used for accessing buildings of risk, and it’s something that I will ask them to look at. I think I mentioned earlier I believe that the public inquiry may indicate that there were breaches to firebreaks within the Grenfell Tower flats through installation of third party activity or later post-dated developments. So, it’s something that is a serious concern. I will raise that with Lesley Griffiths.

In terms of leaseholders, there are some elements of control around leaseholders. There is a duty for tenants to inform the body in regard to what is deemed to be stored in there, in terms of dangerous materials. But there is also the issue around changing front doors. This is an activity often enjoyed by new leaseholders in the building—often not replacing them with fire doors. So, there is an issue where the local authority or the fire service can promote prohibition notices on there for change of use and return back to a fire-door process. I do believe there are some prohibition notices live currently, at the moment, in terms of looking at resolving those issues, but I will take the points that the Member has raised with me this afternoon and talk to other Ministers to see if we can resolve some of the concerns that she has.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.