Questions from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, as the Minister responsible for fire and rescue services in Wales, you've inherited the White Paper issued on the 'Reform of Fire and Rescue Authorities in Wales' last November, with the consultation period closing on 5 February. As the North Wales Fire and Rescue Service response states,

'Fire and rescue services are highly regarded. It goes without saying, therefore, that any proposals to change the way in which fire and rescue authorities are structured, funded or operate would be of significant importance, not only to the authorities themselves but also the many organisations, communities, groups and individuals who rely on the services provided by the authorities.'

How, therefore, do you respond to this statement?

'Given that the Welsh Government's case for change is predicated on a belief that the arrangements that have produced excellent results in the past will not be effective in future, there is remarkably little in the White Paper to substantiate that belief. There's nothing, for example, to indicate that current arrangements are beginning to cause standards to deteriorate or performance to wane, or that they're any less able to meet challenges, innovate or change than they were when they were established in 1996.'

We've gone out to consultation, as the Member rightly says. We've had a large number of responses back. We're looking carefully at those responses. It's a general consultation. Once we've been able to analyse the responses thoroughly, then I'll be able to come back to the Member and Members in general to say how we're going to take this forward, but I've met the fire chiefs and their chairs very recently and I've emphasised the fact that it's a full and genuine consultation. I'm very interested to see the analysis of the responses that they've put in, and, in the light of those responses, I'll be able to answer the Member about how we're taking this service forward.

Well, they also said that the proposed objective seeks, somewhat bizarrely, to preserve the current high standards of fire and rescue services by reforming the arrangements that have produced them. The White Paper lacks coherence in that it proposes solutions to problems that it accepts do not exist, and the White Paper speaks of a perception that fire and rescue authorities are unaccountable. Are you, therefore, at least sympathetic to this statement? 

'As for public accountability, we do not accept that fire and rescue authorities are unaccountable. Our meetings are open to the public and are now webcast so they can be watched remotely, spending and other plans are published annually, people have the facilities to make requests under freedom of information legislation, and the service goes out of its way to meet with representative groups and to take an active part in collaborations with other public voluntary and public sector organisations.'

And it goes on to financial information being accessible and so on. I appreciate that you can't prejudge your response to the consultation, but are you at least sympathetic to the concerns that are here being raised?

Everybody finds change difficult. We had a very good discussion, as I said, pre the consultation closure. I encouraged them all to put forward all of the points—some of which you're now making on their behalf. When we've analysed all the responses, I promised them another meeting before we go public with that and a chance to speak to me directly, all of the fire chiefs and their chairs, so that we can discuss together a way forward.

I think it's not a problem to want to review a service that's been in existence for a very long time and see whether there are things that can be improved. There are things that we're discussing with firefighters, you'll be aware, around widening their roles, since they have, indeed, been very successful in lowering the number of fires across Wales and we're very delighted with that. I also pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of all the firefighters of Wales and the work that they do. But it's a timely look at how they're organised and whether that's optimal. And, as I said, it's a genuine consultation and when we know the result we'll be happy to report back.

But, of course, it's not just the North Wales Fire and Rescue Service, because the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service consultation response stated that despite assertions to the contrary in the White Paper—clearly I think this will cause some offence across the nation of Wales—existing members of the fire and rescue authority do remain accountable to their home authorities, however in the manner in which they discharge their role, they're also accountable to the electorate through the annual reports they prepare.  

How, therefore, finally do you respond to the statement by the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service that they strongly support the wish to avoid any adverse changes to front-line operations or resources, and it's their opinion that this is not achievable through some of the solutions proposed? Budget mechanisms that allow final decisions to be taken outside of the authority legal entity could very likely cause potentially significant changes to front-line services, delivery and resources, to the detriment of the communities they serve, and raise interesting legal and liability implications should levels of funding prove insufficient or result in adverse consequences. 

So, clearly, this goes beyond just organisational proposals, but more deeply into financial considerations and potentially legal considerations. Again, how do you respond to the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service concerns, aligned to those with the other authorities across Wales? 

[Inaudible.]—firefighting service. There's a range of opinions that have been expressed back, and as soon as we've analysed all the opinions—I've had a further discussion, I promised the fire services, with them—and we're able to come to some conclusions, I'll be able to report back to the Member, who's done a fine job of reading some of the concerns out for the Senedd today.  

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Leanne Wood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, according to StatsWales, local authorities have granted planning permission for housing developments that should have resulted in the provision of 13,355 affordable houses, but only 6,746 have actually been built, which is just over 50 per cent of what we should have had. In some local authorities, the figure is even worse: in Wrexham, for example, just 16 per cent of the affordable homes promised within developments have been delivered. In some cases, what appears to have happened is that—[Inaudible.]—planning permission, have negotiated their affordable housing requirements down so that the development can end up being more profitable, and, in doing this, they threaten the local authority with going to the Planning Inspectorate, which, as we all know, is not based in Wales, if they don't get their own way. Given that we've lost almost 7,000 affordable homes that we should have had because of this, do you have confidence that the existing planning system is capable of helping you to achieve your objectives on housing? 

I think the Member raises a very important point, because the local authorities, who have, as we all know, suffered—this is their ninth year of austerity—have lost a number of skills from each individual local authority that enables them to withstand, for example, legal submissions by developers, particularly large developers across Wales, not so much with the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, and they are struggling to negotiate the right levels of social housing and other things, actually, out of their 106 and highways agreements and so on. We're very aware of that. We're in discussion with them about developing a pool of skilled resources to enable authorities to better withstand that kind of negotiation.

We're also, as I said, encouraging those who do not have a robust or very up-to-date local development plan in place to put one in place. I'll be looking at the national framework for Wales to make sure that we have a national framework properly constituted, within which the local authorities can sit more comfortably, which we have not yet done, but which we're developing. And I've recently discussed with the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales extending their remit to housing in order to be able to allow them to assist local authorities with the skills they need to do that. 

So, there are a number of steps that need to be taken. I recognise the danger that the Member outlined. We have had those discussions and I'm going to be continuing them over the next few months. 

Minister, I know you're not responsible for planning, but, obviously, it's crucial in terms of delivering— 

I am. 

You are. Okay, I'll carry on with my questioning, then, if that's the case.

It is arguable that at the moment the planning system is not delivering, and you must be prepared to make major reforms in planning now. Your responsibility is also local authorities. Now, we currently know that large developers can always threaten to appeal decisions to a planning inspectorate and claim their legal costs back, and that's a right, of course, that communities and local objectors don't have. Now, planning departments, as you said, have been cut, and, as a result, they increasingly rely on fees for their services as an income stream, and I think that's a clear conflict of interest. So, what support are you putting in place to stop local authorities being bullied by housing developers into watering down affordable housing, and other planning requirements, and stop the lacklustre section 106 agreements that, as we've seen in London, can actually entrench community divisions?

As I said, I do recognise the problem that the Member outlines, and we are working with authorities to put the skills back in where necessary, and actually to share scarce skills around local authorities in particular areas. You will know that we also encourage authorities to put strategic development plans in place, within which their LDP can sit, which gives them another level of defence against speculative housing developments and in negotiating some of the smaller developments.

But, actually, I want a complete cultural shift in local authorities. With the removal of the cap on the housing revenue account, they can now borrow in order to invest in social housing that they build themselves. So, it would not be looking for a developer to get an affordable development overall, with some social housing in it—they would be looking to compulsorily purchase the land, and build a sustainable community themselves, which neatly takes away the problem. However, they don't have all of the skills to do that either, so we're talking with them about sharing scarce skills, like compulsory purchase skills, for example, land assembly skills, strategic planning skills—all of the skills that go with reconstituting a building programme, or working in partnership with their local small and medium firms, to make sure that they become sustainable, and don't have this terrible problem, as the Member will be aware. A small firm has to invest a lot of money upfront in the planning system and might have a gap for its workforce, struggles to retain the skills and so on.

So, we're looking to do things on a number of fronts. First of all, to encourage the authorities to actually build the houses themselves, in sustainable developments that they put special planning briefs out for; to work in conjunction with local building firms, so that they can smooth over the cashflow, to have the building accounts, and so on, that many colleagues have spoken about over the years; and, thirdly, to put in place a strategic plan, across a number of authorities, that identifies those housing sites, so that the land value uplift from that goes back to the local authority and not into the developer's pocket.

It's not clear to me whether there's a difference between those local authorities that have stock transferred their housing and those that have kept it in-house. But I'll come back to that at another point in time.

One of the achievements of this institution—and credit to the Deputy Llywydd here—has been the Domestic Fire Safety (Wales) Measure 2011, which requires new residential properties to, basically, not be death traps. Now, that was a Measure that large housing developers opposed, because they feared that it would increase the cost. And the former director of Redrow Homes, Steve Morgan, was extremely critical of that, and other regulations on housing, saying that it made developers not want to build in Wales. Of course, Grenfell made it clear who is on the right side of that debate, didn't it? There's no doubt in my mind that we have to be switching from the poor-quality housing of old to new homes with the highest environmental and building standards. So, will you give us an assurance today that you will undertake a whole-Government review of planning legislation and regulations, to ensure that we have a housing sector that is amongst the best in the world, for building and environmental standards, and one where developers meet their obligations to the community, unlike the system we've got now?

Yes, I share her ambition for a system that produces that. I don't think we need a full comprehensive review; we have a large number of reviews ongoing, actually. We have the affordable homes review—I met with the chair only yesterday morning; my time sense is not very good, it might have been this morning—certainly very recently. I had a very good conversation with her around what we're expecting her to come back with with her review. I've met with the decarbonisation working group, which my colleague Lesley has also met with, to talk about some of the problems with retrofitting our current housing stock, which is a real issue for decarbonising—bringing those up to standard; about the continuation of the Welsh housing quality standard into its second phase, to raise the standard of carbon outputs, energy efficiency, utility and so on in the existing housing stock. We're at about 91 per cent of housing that meets the current Welsh housing quality standard at the moment, so we're nearly at the point where we'll be able to say that we've reached the first stage of that.

There are a number of other things. We are looking to raise the bar for what kind of houses we are saying in 'Planning Policy Wales' ought to be permissible to build, around space requirements and around insulation requirements. I personally have a big bee in my bonnet, as you'll know from a previous portfolio, about making sure that builders cable estates to ensure that they can receive high-quality broadband, even if they can't get the thing connected, so that it doesn't have to be retrofitted, and there are a number of other things that councils around Wales want to put in place of that sort that are just standard in the building requirements of any development that comes forward. And on top of that, we have several pieces of work going on around stalled sites and planning problems, where we're looking to smooth the path of small and medium enterprises across Wales, so that they don't have the cash flips that they get when they encounter difficulties in planning and so on. So, there are a number of things we're doing with the Development Bank for Wales, and the stalled sites fund and so on, to afford a cash supply to local builders who want to do the right thing, so that we can encourage the local workforce to build the houses that their own community needs, rather than the big builders coming in and building the kind of one-size-fits-all homes that I personally do not think are what we need for our communities.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I raised the issue recently of the large amount of taxpayers' money that's being wasted in the long-running Caerphilly County Borough Council offices saga. The response I got from the First Minister was that it was largely a matter for the council itself, which is often the response we get when we raise local government issues here in the Chamber, although oversight of local government in Wales is clearly part of your remit, Minister, which is why we're all here doing local government Minister's questions today.

Now, since I tasked the First Minister with this issue, it has emerged that the figure wasted on the Caerphilly saga is not £4 million, which is the figure I quoted. Freedom of information requests have revealed that the figure is actually more than £6 million. And yet, the chief executive of the council is still taking home £130,000 a year for doing nothing, which is exactly what he has been doing for the past six years. Minister, do you now have any accurate estimate of when this whole sorry saga will actually be resolved?

I understand from my recent meeting with Caerphilly leader and chief executive that they expect a report of the designated independent person to come in some time during April. So, I can pass on the information that that's what they expect. However, the First Minister is entirely right: employment matters are entirely a matter for the council and we're not in a position to have any input into that.

Well, thank you for giving me a timeline, which is useful. Although I accept the point you just made, could I also point out that this is an issue that touches on the sometimes excessive pay of senior council officials on many councils in Wales—many of which are Labour controlled? Can I bring to your attention the fact that two councillors in Torfaen have resigned from the Labour group because they were highlighting possible cuts that could be made—they said—to the excessive amount that they were alleging Torfaen council was spending on corporate management. Torfaen is spending almost £3 million a year on corporate management, which is almost double what is being spent on the same thing in neighbouring Newport. Minister, is there a case that, with council services under threat from austerity, as you keep telling us, your Welsh Government should now be investigating whether councils in Wales are spending excessive amounts on the top tier of officer pay?

The Workforce Partnership Council has addressed this issue in the round for local authorities and the First Minister gave an undertaking that, once the processes in Caerphilly have finished, we will undertake a review of disciplinary action for the top tiers of local authority officers. I don't think it's at all right to compare two local authorities in the way that you have, because a large number of other issues will have come to bear in how a local authority structures its corporate core: what services it delivers and why something may or may not cost more than at another local authority. 

The truth is that most local authorities are really struggling with austerity. They've had their budgets either flatlined or cut for the last nine years. We know that all local authorities are really struggling to deliver much-valued and welcome local services and most of them are doing a fine job in making very bad decisions in the sense that there are no good decisions when you're cutting services that people rely on.

[Inaudible.]—the economic reality of austerity, which you described in the first part of your answer, but it may be true that excessive pay at the top of an organisation may mean that people at the lower levels are not being paid enough. And we do know, from an investigation carried out in 2017 by BBC Wales, that most councils in Wales are paying some of their staff less than the real living wage. Do you not think, Minister, that it is time that you looked at the top-tier pay of local authorities in Wales to see if we can get these councils to pay less to their fat cats and more to the workers at the bottom of their pay scales?

As the First Minister said in answer to the question—and I agree with him entirely—I agree that there should be a multiplier. It's usually 20 between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any organisation. The workforce partnership council, which the Deputy Minister is going to be chairing later on this year, in its new reconfigured form, will be taking account of the pay and conditions of staff right across the public sector, and no doubt the workforce partnership council will have something to say about the multipliers that should be in effect.

Question 3 [OAQ53669] is withdrawn. Question 4, Jenny Rathbone.