Well, as you say, we are rightly proud of our fire and rescue services. You state in your opening paragraph that they've worked to help reduce the number of fires and fire casualties. In fact, since 2001-02, a little bit further back than you look, they've reduced by 69 per cent. However, how do you respond to concern that the number of fires attended by Welsh fire and rescue authorities in 2017-18 actually increased by 3 per cent, reversing that trend, with the number of secondary fires rising by 13 per cent, and grassland, woodland and crop fires by 22 per cent, and 15 casualties from fires in Wales, which is actually 50 per cent higher than when 10 fire casualties in Wales were used as an argument in favour of what became the fire sprinkler legislation?

You refer to older people being at greater risk of fire in their homes and the lessons of the Grenfell tragedy. What consideration are you giving or have you given to the Building Research Establishment report commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK in 2002 and the follow-up report by the Welsh Government itself at the tail end of the fire sprinkler legislation, which recommended fire sprinklers in high-rise towers? It was less enthusiastic about new-build residential properties. But it appeared that no response to that was taken until after the Grenfell tragedy.

In a letter to me on 20 June, you said that you don't agree that older people are at particular risk of electrical fires, whether in terms of the source of fire or the cause. I believe you might have since met Electrical Safety First. I think you had a meeting scheduled with them for July. They produced figures showing that, of 1,485 reported domestic fires last year—I presume that's UK—71 per cent of those were electrical fires and 63 per cent in the kitchen. And, in that context, what is the Welsh Government doing to raise awareness of fires caused by electricity in Wales?

My final questions relate to your proposed changes to governance and funding arrangements, which you say are simply not up to the job. You then ironically attribute the failings to

'large committees of backbench councillors, at arm’s length from all other local services and without any kind of direct democratic mandate.'

That's a model that, as I recall, you defended when the UK Government was proposing police and crime commissioners, using almost identical words at that time. You say that will mean fire and rescue authority membership becoming more streamlined and transparent, and budgets needing proper scrutiny and approval. Well, thankfully, the fire and rescue authorities are transparent with their meeting documentation, which is surely a valid point when considering their current governance and finance arrangements. The report from the chief fire officer in north Wales to their fire authority on 17 September referred to key issues set out in a letter to fire and rescue authority chairs in February by you for the meeting the three chairs had with you at the end of April, to your then engagement of Professor Catherine Farrell of the University of South Wales and Professor Rachel Ashworth at Cardiff University, to speak with representatives of the fire rescue authorities and the WLGA, and that their report was submitted to you. And the report from the deputy chief officer of South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority in September to his or her authority attached a summary feedback drawn from the meetings held with the fire and rescue authority chairs, chiefs and additional personnel and the WLGA. How, therefore, do you respond to the findings in that report that chiefs and chairs are not resistant to change, and provided many examples of how they embraced it, but they raised a series of concerns regarding the suggestion that fire and rescue governance in Wales might be reformed?

How do you respond to the statement that several queried the lack of clear evidence and rationale for reform, feeling that perceived problems with the current system had not been clearly identified, making it difficult for them to estimate the added value that might be gained through any change, to the statement in which some of them raised concern about changing a system that operates well and, quote, 'breaking a system which is not broken', giving the example that it was identified that accountability for fire was highly sufficient given the scale and budget for the service, relative to systems of accountability for other public services operating at a much larger scale, and to the statement that interviews emphasised the importance of the electoral link via local authorities and provided examples of how this was currently operationalised to deliver accountability, transparency, consultation and information? And, finally, how do you respond—I won't read them all because there are a lot of them—to the summary of suggestions for improvement in that report, which I'm sure you have engraved on your bedroom wall, but which included the need for consistency around member role specifications, the clarity around the scrutiny and challenge role, an indication of the level of member development and support, and the need for members with expertise from outside the service, from areas such as health and social care, to be co-opted onto the fire and rescue authority, or a new national issues committee scrutiny sub-committee? Thank you.