While I agree with much of the Minister's approach, I do think it's time to move more quickly, though I do welcome the fact that we're having regular statements on this very important issue. For instance, I note that you will publish a White Paper on building safety. I think that's appropriate. But I think what we also need to know is whether you intend to legislate before the Assembly elections in 2021, because, if you don't, any Government that's elected then at that election will have to bring in a legislative programme, that probably won't be until the autumn of 2021, and it could be 2022 or 2023 before we are seeing any legislation. So, I really think that we need to do the legislation in this Assembly, if at all possible.

I have a couple of specific questions as well. I note what you said about compartmentation, which is not easy to say, being critical to the design of high-rise buildings, and that any safety inspection has to look at that, and then any future remediation has to look at that, and communal areas. Even each person's front door—if that isn't of the required fire safety then it doesn't matter how robust the flat is, obviously you've got a problem. But I do want to know where we are with 'stay put' advice as well. I notice in England—sorry, in London—they are expressly reviewing that. There's still a lot of confusion about what residents should do.

And then the registration of managing agents—whilst I could see, in terms of a voluntary scheme, that you can get going quicker on that, I would like to know whether we have the power to legislate or whether that doesn't lie within our powers. And, if it doesn't, what discussions are we having with the UK Government to ensure—? I think it should be a mandatory system, and if we could move forward on that as quickly as possible—. 

Finally, can I say that I was a bit disappointed about what we're doing in the private residential sector, where there have been more and more revelations of sub-standard buildings, some of them not very old? The Celestia complex in Cardiff Bay has been discussed, and I think it's a very troubling example: developed by Redrow, now found to have very poor or non-existent fire barriers between flats—there is an enforcement order issued by the fire authority—very poor or non-existent compartmentation measures; design features not in place to stop fire spreading internally; missing or defective external fire cavity barriers; and some of the timber cladding and insulation does not meet required standards. Now, just reading that out, you can imagine what the residents feel, but it now appears that they're going to bear all the risk and the cost of putting things right, unless pressure is brought to bear. I think the developers have and the builders have a moral responsibility, but we need to go a bit further than that and see if the regulations that were in force at the time were properly observed, and, if not, and there's systematic failure, so even if the materials were correct the way they were installed was not, then it seems to me that, at the very least, we need a partnership approach between the private sector, state sector and, perhaps, residents as well. But I do not think the residents should be bearing the brunt of the cost—nothing like it.

Now, the UK Government, to get moving on this, has announced that about £200 million would be made available to remove and replace unsafe cladding from high-rise private residential buildings. This will enable remediation work to take place and it will have to be done for the benefit of the leaseholders, and presumably it will help to reduce the costs they face. I genuinely don't know if that's a UK scheme. If it is, what can we expect to get and how will you administer it? If it isn't, is there any Barnett consequential and will you be developing a scheme as well?

But, it's not enough, I think, and I would say this of the UK Government as well—I'm not singling you out—to talk about moral responsibility that the builders and developers have. We need to get everyone around the table and find a solution, and not just send off bills for £40,000, potentially, to someone who owns a modest two-bedroomed flat in one of these developments. People are really, really concerned—I'm sure many of them are watching this session. I would co-operate with you fully, because we are where we are through a series of problems and errors that have been committed by various administrations, no doubt, but we do need to help these people who are in real need at the moment, and, in many ways, in a worse position than those in social housing.