Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government—the Welsh Government response to the building safety expert group's road map—and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I intend to take forward an ambitious programme of work to enhance the safety of residents living in higher risk buildings in Wales. The Welsh Government has a strong record in advancing fire safety. Deputy Presiding Officer, as you will certainly know, we were the first country in the world to require sprinklers in all newly built and converted houses and flats. I want to ensure that we build on this strong legacy and that Wales continues to be a leader in keeping people safe in their homes.

As I have repeatedly said, however, there must be no room for complacency. This is in the forefront of my mind in responding to the building safety expert group’s road map, published last month. The Welsh Government accepts all the expert group’s recommendations in principle. We will now work to address them as quickly as we can, but we will not rush this important work. As the expert group has said in their road map, there is a need for a considered and coherent approach and it will take time to get this right.

The Welsh Government will take forward a comprehensive programme of work to reform the regulatory system in respect of higher risk buildings in Wales. This will be phased over this and the next Assembly term. I will put in place stretching timescales and clear objectives to steer delivery by both Welsh Government and our stakeholders.

In the first instance, we will secure immediate improvements in the here and now. In advance of more far-reaching reform, we will focus on generating culture change and making our existing processes work more effectively to ensure resident safety. We will bring forward amendments to existing legislation in support of this where required. I've already indicated that I aim to table amendments to the building regulations in order to ban the use of combustible cladding materials by the end of the summer. I'm also keen, as I stated last month, to promote the retrofitting of sprinklers. We know that such systems are among the most effective measures in preventing deaths and injuries from fire. Evidence also suggests that their presence dramatically reduces the cost and disruption caused by fire. So, there's not only a moral imperative for building owners to fit sprinklers, but a sound commercial case.

We'll be ensuring that this message is heard loud and clear in the coming months. To take account of developments in the market, we will issue new guidance on mist systems. We will also re-launch the ‘Householders Guide to Fire Sprinklers’, originally published in 2015, in the autumn. In collaboration with the fire and rescue service, we will take forward a targeted campaign to build awareness of this guidance and to encourage the retrofitting of sprinklers in private sector high-rise buildings. At the same time, we will also work with registered social landlords to build on the strong progress to date in retrofitting sprinklers in social sector high-rise blocks.

I will also bring forward amendments to existing legislation to make fire and rescue authorities statutory consultees in the planning process. This is an important step in managing changes in local levels of fire risk. As all significant planning applications raise issues such as access for fire appliances, our proposals will go much further than high-rise buildings, and I aim to consult on the detail later this year. This ambitious change will embed the principle of regulatory collaboration between local authorities and the fire and rescue service, which will be a hallmark of the new system in Wales.

In addition to these changes, we will develop an ambitious package of future regulatory reform. My officials are establishing two work streams, which will involve members of the building safety expert group as well as other practitioners from Wales and further afield. One work stream will consider the design and construction phase. A key task facing this work stream will be to refine and trial an entirely new building control process for higher risk buildings. This will build on the principles outlined in the expert group’s road map. This includes the need for a more robust inspection regime, stop points, and the central involvement of the fire and rescue service at key stages. The work stream will also feed into comprehensive legislative proposals to define duty holder roles and responsibilities to remedy the lack of clear accountability for safety outcomes in the current system. These are likely to reflect the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, which have transformed health and safety in the construction industry.

The other work stream will focus on the management and regulation of fire safety in higher risk buildings when they are occupied. This work stream will, again, draw up clear roles for duty holders. It would also consider the shape of legislation to replace the current fire safety Order, which was designed mostly for workplaces and does not adequately protect private dwellings. Given that this will require primary legislation, it is unlikely that we will be able to complete this work during the current Assembly term. Where possible, however, we will use our existing powers to make regulations under the Order and issue guidance as interim measures. One of the strengths of the Welsh Government’s approach to date has been our ability to link together different phases of the building life cycle. This is reflected in our early commitment to amend or replace the fire safety Order as a key element of our reform package.

The occupation phase work stream will also consider how to enhance the role of residents by ensuring that their voices are heard and that they are provided with clear information about fire safety in their building. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government is taking forward this work with Community Housing Cymru in partnership with their member housing associations. The Welsh Government will work closely with stakeholders in both the social and private sectors to ensure that the best practice identified is embedded as widely as possible.

We will also address issues of overarching significance that cut across the building life cycle. A critical aspect of the Welsh Government’s initial stage of work will be to define the range of buildings in scope of reform. The expert group have made it clear that the 30m height threshold proposed by Dame Judith Hackitt in her review is not exacting enough in the Welsh context. I agree that we can and should go further in bringing additional buildings within scope. For this reason, we will consider the forthcoming proposals of the National Fire Chiefs Council in relation to a building risk matrix. We will also commission our own research into the full range of implications of each of the proposed options put forward by the expert group in its road map. These were the adoption of height thresholds of either of 18m or 11m, as well as the potential inclusion of additional buildings on the basis of risk factors other than height.

It is important that we make a considered decision that balances proportionality with the need to ensure resident safety. We are taking forward this work at pace and I will make a definitive announcement on a proposal for buildings in scope in the autumn. I am clear, however, that the threshold will be no higher than 18m. We will consult on the question of buildings in scope, alongside a wide range of other detailed proposals for reform, in the summer of 2020. This will be with a view to legislation in the next Assembly term.

The proposed legislation will be ambitious and far reaching. It will set out unambiguous roles and responsibilities for duty holders across the building life cycle. It will mandate robust fire safety checks. It will embed a new system of oversight and enforcement to reverse the race to the bottom and drive improved safety outcomes that will apply during design, construction, renovation and ongoing building occupation.

As I have said before, it is essential that we balance an appropriate sense of urgency with the need to get this complex and enduring package of reform absolutely right. The Welsh Government's phased approach to implementation will ensure that we strike the right balance. We will not compromise on effective delivery for the sake of quick fixes that we later find have failed to bring about the change required. In their road map, the building safety expert group set out a clear case for both interim measures to be turned around at pace and for ambitious regulatory reform in the longer term. This is exactly the approach that the Welsh Government will take in order to improve the safety of higher risk residential buildings and those who live in them. Diolch.

Thank you. David Melding.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank the Minister for making her statement? I'm a little disappointed; I think I have to be candid about this, given that we've had an earlier statement, the one in March, and I had hoped there'd be more pace and purpose in the May statement, which was promised in the earlier statement.

At the moment, we know that the Government accepts all the recommendations in the expert group's report in principle. We were promised a detailed response in May, and I think to say that the recommendations are accepted in principle is perhaps a little disappointing. I was hoping that we'd have something perhaps similar to the narrative we have when the Welsh Government responds to Assembly committee reports, so that we know those that are immediately going to be accepted in practice and then those that are in principle but will be heavily reworked, usually, by the Government. So, that's the first thing I want to say.

In March, the Minister also promised a clear project plan, and that was supposed to be delivered today, but I don't think without that clear response to the recommendations of the expert group's report that you can have something that constitutes such a delivery plan. I do acknowledge that there has been some progress in terms of the detail about next steps. For instance, I do welcome the fact that the height threshold will be no higher than 18m. I think that is a very helpful statement and I think it will be a reassuring one, and it is one that we support.

Another step I welcome is making fire and rescue authorities consultees in the planning process. There is, however, as I hinted earlier, less progress in other areas—for example, promoting the retrofitting of sprinklers. The Minister really has not done much more than repeat what she said in March. I do not think it is exactly a clear project plan to say, regarding sprinklers, that there will be a relaunch of the 'Householders Guide to Fire Sprinklers' that was first published in 2015. I really did expect more at this stage.

I said in my response to the March statement that we need to engage residents more fully and effectively. And while I'm pleased that the Welsh Government will work with Community Housing Cymru to, and I quote,

'consider how to enhance the role of residents by ensuring that their voices are heard'— end quote—I had expected something a bit more definitive and certainly quicker.

Much of the necessary work to implement the expert group's recommendations, at least those that we will get to hear are accepted in practice, will fall to the two work streams, as the Minister indicated. And I do realise there is a need to consider matters carefully and fully. However, there's also a need to act swiftly and to give fire safety the highest priority. Indeed, the Minister said in her March statement—and now I quote again—that there would be a

'project plan, with transparent timescales'.

Well, the only transparent timescale I can see in this statement is the promise of a consultation in the summer of 2020. That's a promise of a consultation one year hence. Not the conclusion of a consultation in a year, but the commencement of a consultation in one year, and that with a view—a view—to legislate in the next Assembly term.

We have to be upfront here: this is slow pace, and it resembles, in my view, more the sort of orderly legislative process that a Government would have in an area of public policy that needs updating and reform, but didn't have critical matters of danger within it, as I'm afraid we do at the moment in some aspects of fire safety, in particular in regard to high-rise buildings. We need to move more quickly so that we can act on the strong evidence base that the Hackitt review and this expert group's recommendations have developed.

Can I say—? If you do move more swiftly, we've still got two years of this Assembly term. I know our group will work very fully with you in that, and I'm sure that the other groups in this Assembly would do the same. We can move more quickly; I urge you to do so.

I hear absolutely what David Melding says, and of course there is a temptation to want to do it quickly, because we all understand the danger, if you like, and obviously we don't want to see a repeat of any of the tragedy that we saw at Grenfell. Anyone who's seen any of the members of the Justice4Grenfell group speak will have heard their heartfelt plea. But one of the other pleas that they also have is that we put the system right for the longer term and that the tenant's voice is very much front and centre of that, so there's a little bit of a conflict in rushing and also getting that in place. But I do hear what he says.

I will happily send the detailed project plan that we have so far to clarify the specific actions that do have dates attached to them, alongside anticipated points for key documents. I just emphasise that it's not a complete project plan, but I'm very happy to share it as it is now and as it emerges. We want to be as open and transparent as possible. I hear his offer to work across the Chamber; I'm sure there will be no problem with that. It is just a question of us being absolutely certain exactly where we want to go. There are some things we are still wanting to put in place before we go for it, and they will be a combination of things we can do in this Assembly term: a set of secondary regulations and so on that will work straight away, and some reissued guidance, which is obviously updated rather than just reissued, so that it has the necessary things in it.

But there are some things that require quite substantial primary legislation, and if we can get it through in this Assembly term, we definitely will, but I don't think it's controversial legislation in the sense that it relies on a political mandate to get it through. I do think it will be consensual across the Chamber and, regardless of the make-up of the next Assembly, it will be something that whoever is the administration will want to take forward, and we would like to get it to as close to complete as we possibly can. If we can get it through, fantastic. I'm just saying that I can't promise that at this stage, because there is a lot of work to be done between now and a point in time when we would be in a position to send policy instructions to the lawyers for drafting, for example.

So, we are going as fast as we think is safe to go to get the system right, but I share his frustration about the length of time it is taking to do that. I will happily share the detailed project plan that we have so far, and, Deputy Presiding Officer, keep that updated as we go for all Members.

May I thank the Minister for her statement today and welcome that, and also the work of the building safety expert group? Obviously, the committee I Chair, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, has taken a very strong interest in these matters, which are very urgent and serious matters, as we've already discussed today. It is really a matter of safety, and, obviously, that is of paramount importance—the safety of residents in high-rise buildings in Wales. It is a question of getting the balance, I accept that, in the need for urgency to address these very serious matters, but, at the same time, ensuring that we get it right. Indeed, there will be a mix of shorter term, medium term and longer term work, I'm sure.

I would like to echo what David Melding said, really, which is that back in April, Minister, you did make a statement on publication of the road map—that you would take time to reflect on the group's recommendations and then share a response with the Assembly in May, and that as part of that there would be a clear project plan, establishing priorities and timelines for next steps. So, it is a little disappointing today that we're not in a position to have that clarity. I hear what you say in terms of sharing the content of what has been decided upon to date. That would be welcome. But given that that expectation had been raised, it is a little disappointing that we're not in that position today. If there's any more you can say in terms of what's changed between now and then to give rise to that situation, I would be grateful for that.

Since 2017, as a committee, we've been calling for a change to the fire safety regulations, and in particular a revision of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This new legislation to set standards for people undertaking fire risk assessments that we've discussed would place a requirement for those assessments to be undertaken annually and clarify that fire doors that act as front doors of common areas are therefore within the scope of the Order. Those are points that we made as a committee—that we want to see those matters addressed and the legislation revised in this current Assembly term. So, that very much, I think, speaks to that appropriate balance of urgency and getting it right. And, of course, the building safety expert group also recommended legislation to replace the fire safety Order. So, while pleased that there is a commitment from Government, Minister, to get that new legislation in place, again I am disappointed that it wouldn't be in this current Assembly term, because that means at least another two years, really, of waiting, before that important legislation is introduced, and even longer before it's actually implemented. The committee, I think, was quite clear that the matters that it would cover are too important, really, to be subject to any unnecessary delay. So, I would urge you, as I think David Melding did, to think again on those matters and the prioritisation and urgency that they require.

In terms of building control, and, again, the appropriate regulatory framework and necessary changes, we were very clear, I hope, and keen, that only local authority building control inspectors should act in that regulatory way for high-rise residential blocks, and we set out our thinking and evidence for that, which I know you rejected at the time. But you did state that you would take account of capacity and competence and those general issues as proposals are developed for the sector. So, I wonder now, in terms of the road map not making a specific recommendation about this—the recommendation that the committee made—whether you would consider whether there is sufficient capacity within the building control sector to deliver any new system, and whether that should include a consideration of the role of approved inspectors in the way that the committee has suggested. So, if you could say a little more about that, I'd be, again, very grateful. And, of course, regulation of agents who manage high-rise residential buildings is another issue that comes within that consideration of regulation and changes to be made. I wonder if, again, you could say a little bit more about what the Welsh Government will do—setting out the process as far as that's concerned.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, in terms of the road map again and the retrofitting of sprinklers, I'm grateful, again, for the setting out that you stated earlier in terms of steps to encourage and promote that retrofitting, but again, as I think David Melding suggested, I do feel that we need to hear a little bit more, and have a little bit more confidence and detail in terms of how necessary progress will be achieved.

I don't want you to think that because I'm saying we accept the recommendations in principle it's a mealy-mouthed way of saying that we get what they're saying but we're going to do something different. What we mean by that is that we've not yet had sufficient time to work through the detailed road map of implementing the recommendations. Just to be clear, we're not saying that there's some fundamental problem with any of them. It is just about a very complex set of things that we've got to work through in order to do that.

As I said, we want to get the system thoroughly, coherently, properly working together. We're doing that across three sets of regulators, and I've got most of those in my portfolio. The Hackitt review in England is recommending, for example, a joint combined regulator across that. We don't think that's the right solution for Wales as that puts another level of bureaucracy into an already very bureaucratic system. So, for example, we're looking to see whether there are any other mechanisms for pulling the regulators together in this regard rather than making another tier of regulation for a specific thing. So, that's just one example of where we're trying to work through the recommendations. So, it's not that we don't accept it, it's just that sometimes it's disproportionate to the level of risk here in Wales. So we're just trying to get the proportionality right. I just use that as one example of what we're trying to work through with that.

The fire safety Order—there are quite a few things we can do short of primary legislation, so we will be going at pace to do those things, and that will include statutory instruments to put some of that in place already, and we will consult on the new overarching Order. So, it may be that we can get it through in this Assembly term. I'm just not promising that we can do that, because I'm not in a position to be able to do that. If we can go faster than that because it turns out it's not controversial at all, then fantastic. At the moment there are quite a few varied views across the sector, and whilst everybody wants to get it done, there isn't, it seems to me, wholesale agreement about how to get it done. So we do have to get a consensus arrangement in place, or at least understand where everybody's coming from for that.

So, whilst we all agree about the need for doing this at pace, we also, I think, all agree on the need to do it properly and right. As I say, we're in a consensus about needing to do it, but not, unfortunately, in a consensus about what 'it' exactly is. Once you start to go down into the detail, you'll find that there are different views across the various regulators and the various stakeholders that we need to work through in order to get that right. And one of those is around building control issues, so I absolutely take the committee's point of view—it's certainly something we want to look at, but there are real issues around capacity in local government for that. What we would do about the current position where they sell services on the one hand and are the regulator on the other—there are a number of important issues to work through, which we will work through, and we will come to the conclusion necessary to make sure that the regime is robust. I understand entirely what the committee was trying to achieve by that, because quite clearly there is a conflict between being an inspector as the building is built and then being the regulator as well. There's a clear conflict, but how we work through that conflict and what process we put in place is another question entirely, and there are a number of ways of doing that that we need to work through. So, I get the point, but again, I'm not quite in a position to be able to come to that conclusion.

I too am disappointed that we're not. It's about seven weeks, I think, since I made the statement. It is taking us longer to get consensus on some of these things than we might have thought, and some of it is more contentious than we might have thought. If you remember the road map—and I stupidly haven't brought a copy with me—there were three or four 'stop points' in it that we need to think about, and as I said, we've established the different workstreams in order to work through some of those conflicts. It's the same for agents. There's still a conversation to be had about conflicts of interest, and how they work, and what the duty holders that I talked about in my statement are, and what the duties on the duty holders are, and how they work through. So, those things are addressed, but we've yet to come to quite the conclusion we need to be in to give the policy instructions to the lawyers to draft the legislation. We need to get to that stage for that.

On the retrofitting of sprinklers, again, we are discussing that: how we can do that in a proportionate way, how we can give access to finance for that, what the higher-risk buildings will look like, and what the schedule will look like. Ideally, of course, we would like all buildings to have sprinklers in them. Just to be clear: that's the ideal. It's just a question of how we get there and how we finance that. So, obviously, we will be looking at that for different sectors across Wales. There will be different solutions for social housing than there will be in the private rented sector, for example, and we need to have access to that. And I think we're all in the same place—it's just about trying to get there with the right conclusions, so that we get a robust system in Wales where we don't have an unforeseen consequence yet again, where people lose their lives because we haven't been able to think through the system.

I very much welcome the Government's statement today, and can I say that I'll avoid saying anything that John Griffiths and David Melding have said up until now, but I agree with everything that both of them have said? The minimum that we should expect from a dwelling is that it is windproof, waterproof, and most importantly, safe. I think that's what we all have to expect.

Welsh Government's got a good record in advancing fire safety. We were the first country in the world to require sprinklers in all newly built and converted houses and flats. I don't need to tell you, Deputy Presiding Officer, about the screams of some builders about how it was going to make it impossible, and I think those screams have disappeared now because I think they've realised that it is important and it does keep people alive. I support the Government's policy to ensure we build on this strong legacy and that Wales continues to be a leader in keeping people safe in their homes.

I note the Welsh Government accepts all the experts' recommendations in principle. The problem with accepting things in principle is, for many of us who've sat in here for several years, 'in principle' has tended to mean the Government aren't actually going to do anything about what is recommended, but they're not prepared to have a row about it. That's really what 'in principle' has meant over the last few years. So, I hope your 'in principle' means that you accept in principle that you're going to find a way of actually achieving it, rather than patting us on the head or patting them on the head and saying, 'That's just great, but we won't actually do anything.' So, my first question is: can you provide regular—I'm not expecting verbal, but written—updates and inform the Assembly which of those have moved from in principle to being carried out? I wouldn't expect you to come and tell us every time, but a written statement on that I don't think is asking too much.

I note you said, as you said last month, that you'll promote the retrofitting of sprinklers. I know that there are a number of people in the private sector, also including some people who own buildings, who are finding it incredibly expensive to have to do that. Will any transaction capital be used to support this via loans for privately owned flats and people who own buildings? Because my understanding of transactions capital—and I accept that you probably know more about it than I do—is that it is available to be used by the private sector only, and as such I would think this would be a good use of it.

On the 'in principle' point, I made the point earlier, we are not saying, 'Thanks very much; we kind of agree with you, but we're going to do it a different way.' What we are saying is that we accept all of the recommendations and we are working through a detailed plan to come back—I'm very happy to keep Members updated with that—on each one to make sure that we know exactly what we're going to do in order to implement each one, and we are not yet in a position to be able to say that.

As I said, I'm happy to share what we've got by way of a project plan at the moment. It has some detail in it; there's not as much detail in it as I would like. And then as that project plan is developed, I'm more than happy to place it in the Library on a regular basis and let Members know that I've done that so that people can follow it through. I am proposing to come back with an oral statement around October to put more flesh on this, and I hope then to be able to say something more about the secondary legislation that we're able to do, what the regulations might look like, and what the reissued guidance might look like. So, I absolutely propose to keep Members completely up-to-date.

We are looking to see what loan finance can be made available in certain sectors, because there is an issue about retrofit—how can we afford the retrofit? And I have to say, it's not just for sprinklers—there's a whole series of other things around fire doors and non-aluminium composite material cladding and all kinds of other stuff that need to be retrofitted that we need to find solutions to. So, there are some really complex things in here. There's the immediate issue of ACM cladding, which we've addressed and is sorted out, but there are other areas where there are complex issues around the ability of fire doors to actually hold back fire, the safety involved in that and so on, which we need to work through. We need to have proper proposals for what we can do with that.

And as I said in response to John Griffiths, there are some complex arrangements around the regulation of this. Who can act? Who will the duty holders be? What will that duty look like that we need to put in place before we can legislate? These things are very complicated. The road map works, but there are several decision points along it that we need to work through. And each time we make one of those decisions, it ripples across some of the rest of it, so we have to just make sure we don't have unintended consequences as we go across.

So, for example, if we're to say that building control are the regulator in the local authority, are we to take away their ability to sell building control out and have a revenue stream from that? If we are to do that, then how are they to fund the building control regulation services? So, there are some real issues here in making what would appear to be a straightforward decision but actually then has all kinds of ramifications around it.

Can I just ask one question, if I may? In considering this, what consideration have you given to the 2012 Building Research Establishment's cost-benefit analysis of residential sprinklers report, which was carried out for the Welsh Government, which replicated the findings of the equivalent 2002 report for the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK, that although sprinklers were not effective in two-storey houses, they would be effective in residential care homes, lots of purpose-built flats and larger blocks of converted flats and traditional bedsit houses in multiple occupation with at least six bedsit units? That was several years ago, replicating a report from 17 years ago.

I don't disagree with that. As we said, we put an obligation on new build, the big issue for us is how on earth do we get the retrofit to happen. So, nobody's arguing that it should be done, it's just a question of how on earth we're to do it. The other thing is, the technology is changing all the time, so a sprinkler system in 2002 wouldn't have looked anything like the misting systems that you have now. That would have just drenched everything in soaking wet water and would not have made home owners happy. The misting systems that we have now are much more effective and cause much less damage to householder property. So, they have lots of concurrent benefits: they save your life; they also stop your asset being destroyed, or largely. And they're far, far better than having the fire service come and soak your entire house with a high-pressure hose, which will certainly put your fire out but will also render your asset pretty much useless. So, there are lots of things to be taken into account here. And as each sector looks at its asset base and how it wants to preserve it, it comes to a conclusion about how best to look at that. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, we're doing this in conjunction with a number of other reviews as well. We're about to have a review back on the decarbonisation of our existing housing stock, which will have a dramatic impact on other retrofits. So, we need to tie them together so that we're not asking any sector to do three or four lots of retrofit in succession with different legislation coming through. So, we need to bear in mind that if you're going to retrofit a dwelling, you want to do it for everything at the same time and not have a piecemeal approach. So, I accept Mark Isherwood's point. This stuff has been around. Nobody's arguing that we need to do it. We're just talking about what the very best way to have the very best system in Wales is that will endure into the future.

With my apologies, sorry—Helen Mary Jones.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I didn't have the opportunity when we last discussed this matter in March to put on record my personal congratulations to the Dirprwy Lywydd for the way that she led on this agenda through her private Member's legislation. She's rolling her eyes at me because she gets tired of us congratulating her about this, but I actually think it is something that we shouldn't forget—that it is through some individuals with really strong personal knowledge that has actually enabled us to take some of the lead here.

I'd associate myself with some of the concerns that other Members have raised. I was with Mike Hedges on the whole 'in principle' thing, but I have heard what the Minister has said and on this side we are reassured. If I can associate myself as well with what others have said about giving our commitment to if there is any way in which we can help you to escalate the speed of this, Minister. We appreciate of course that this is a very complex matter, but I suppose I would say that a point will be reached when perhaps it isn't possible to meet consensus and some people will simply have to be told. You cannot necessarily expect turkeys to vote for Christmas, so there will be times when with some people, some sectors and some bits of some sectors you will just have to take that lead. We give you the assurance from this side of the Chamber that you will have our support in doing that. 

Several of the specific points I wished to raise have already been touched on, but if I can just come back to the issue briefly of retrofitting sprinklers. We fully appreciate the need for a campaign, for persuasion, but will the Minister be giving any consideration eventually to mandating this? I realise that it is complicated, I realise it will take time, and nobody's underestimating the costs involved, and I have been pleased to hear the Minister say that there is some consideration being given to how some funding might be brought forward. But, in the end, there may be people who will not take advantage of all those voluntary opportunities and, from this side, we would like to see the Government ultimately, perhaps as a second or third step, considering legislation if that is necessary.

I was very pleased to hear what the Minister had to say in her statement with regard to the residents' voice, and very pleased to see the work together with, in particular, the social housing sector. However, my concern would be that it is not always the good landlords that we need to get working on this. So, again, I'd ask the Minister whether she will consider at some point mandating a process. We know the terrible tragedy of Grenfell arguably could have been avoided had residents been listened to sooner, and it will not necessarily be the good landlords and the social landlords that we have to take on board with this.

We very strongly welcome the bringing in of the fire and rescue service as statutory consultees in the planning process, but is it the Minister's intention that that will be backed up by fire safety being a single material ground, potentially, for rejecting planning? Because it's one thing to be a statutory consultee, it's then a question of how much weight that consultation is given. I very much hope that that will be the case.

We're also interested to know what might be able to be done—. As this planning process is going through, there will of course be some potentially quite big developments that are happening before that can become mandatory. So, is there anything that the Minister can do, working with local authorities, perhaps, to try and encourage developers to take advice from the fire and rescue service as part of the planning process, even if it will obviously take some time to legislate?

Finally, we'd like to say just how very pleased we are that the Minister is moving at pace to ban combustible cladding. You have, of course, our complete support on that, Minister. This is such an important agenda. I think I have heard everything that you've said to David Melding, to John Griffiths and to others about needing to get this right, but I think from this side, we would like to say we also need to get it done.

Yes, I don't disagree with anything that Helen Mary has just said. I just want to reassure Members that our information shows us that all high-rise residential buildings in the Welsh social housing sector have sprinklers fitted, have plans in place to retrofit or are in the process of retrofitting. So, we know that all of those are in plan. 

We have much to do in the private sector, however, where the figures are lower. We have a number of actions that we are taking forward, and some of the things that you set out there in your contribution will be some of the things we can do short of legislation. So, adaptations to 'Planning Policy Wales', for example, some of the statutory instruments that we can put in place, guidance—mandatory or otherwise—we can do those faster. What we need to be clear about, though, is what it is. So, until we've worked through with the expert group and the various advisers and the regulators what exactly it is that we're asking people to do, then we can't do that. And that is taking just a little longer than we would like, but we're very determined to get it right.

And, just to use the example I've used several times already, building control, for example—and it is only an example, please don't think we've made this decision, but if we were to decide that local authority building control would be the regulator, then in what way would we compensate them for the loss of the income that they currently have as a result of selling building control services? And what systems would we put in place to ensure that they had access during the build, during the fit-out and then during the occupation phase to ensure that that worked? And I don't know the detail of that yet, so we're not in a position to make those decisions. And that's just one example of a whole stream of them that we have to do. But, yes, in principle, we will change the planning guidance as necessary.

As I said, we are making them statutory consultees, and that will make it a material planning consideration, both for things like the combustibility of the build itself but also access to fire tenders and such other things that are very important in terms of fire safety overall.

Thank you very much, Minister.