The next item is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government—an update on building safety. And I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to make the statement. Julie James. 

Diolch. Building safety, and the safety of residents, is a high priority for this Government. Safe homes are the foundation on which any modern society thrives. People have a fundamental right to feel safe in their homes. In Wales, we have a good record of fire safety. Latest figures show the number of accidental dwelling fires in Wales is at an all-time low. Furthermore, we have seen this number fall faster here than elsewhere in Great Britain. The overall chance of any dwelling experiencing a fire is low, at around one in 1,000 per year. Whilst the statistics are positive, the harm that fires cause, both in terms of injury and loss of property, is devastating. The data also shows that over three quarters of dwelling fires are caused by unsafe behaviour, not unsafe products or premises. No system of regulation can address that.

Wales also has by far the most widespread and most generous programme of home fire safety checks in Great Britain. The preventative work undertaken by our fire and rescue services has improved fire safety in our homes significantly. However, there is no room for complacency. We must continue to make improvements where we can, whilst working towards an improved and comprehensive building safety system, from the design and construction of buildings through to their occupation.

Next week we will see the publication of the first report of the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire. It will cover the events on the night of the fire itself and the actions of the main responders, in particular the London Fire Brigade and the Metropolitan Police. Any findings or recommendations it makes will primarily be a matter for those organisations, but we will be examining the report closely to identify any implications and lessons for Wales.

Since my last oral statement on building safety in May, the building safety programme board has been established and is progressing the recommendations from 'A Road Map to safer buildings in Wales'. Many of these reforms are long-term changes that will require new primary legislation. I will publish my White Paper on proposals for the reformed building safety system next year. However, there is much that can be done in the short and medium term to improve fire safety.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I've already committed to consult on making the fire and rescue service a statutory consultee on relevant planning applications. This will ensure fire safety issues are fully considered at this early stage, and make the service aware of changes in local fire risk at the earliest opportunity. This goes beyond high-rise buildings, and, subject to consultation, could include other purpose-built flats. Extensive low-rise developments can also raise issues of access for fire appliances and water supplies.

Amendments to the current building regulations in order to ban the use of combustible cladding materials, making it clear what cladding is acceptable on high-rise residential buildings, are also in hand. I would expect these amendments to be laid by Christmas, following clearance. We will not tolerate cladding that falls below acceptable standards and increases risk to residents.

To ensure practical short-term improvements to current working arrangements, my officials have further engaged with key partners to improve communication and better understand current roles and duties. We are working with the Welsh Local Government Association and the Directors of Public Protection Wales to identify further support for local authorities to ensure residents in high-rise residential buildings receive the necessary checks. This will maintain a safe living environment and should help rebuild confidence following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower.

This programme of comprehensive reforms will put greater emphasis on buildings over 18m, or seven storeys, in height. Fire safety in blocks of flats depends critically on maintaining compartmentalisation—the ability of the structure to contain a fire in the area in which it originates. If that fails, as it did at Grenfell, then the consequences, as we know, can be really dire. The risks presented by inadequate compartmentation are especially high in taller buildings, given the added challenges of escape or rescue. Therefore, it is right and proper that there are more requirements on how these buildings are designed and constructed and how they are managed when in occupation.

My commitment to improving fire safety does not only apply to those living in high-rise residential buildings, though. My intention is for legislation to be flexible enough to include other buildings in the future, should the evidence lead us to consider it necessary. A one-size-fits-all system does not reflect the range and complexity of the system we are trying to fix.

As part of the reforms, I am looking to make significant changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, commonly known as the fire safety Order, to lighten the system for occupation of buildings. Sorry, Llywydd—to tighten the system, not lighten it; to tighten the system for occupation of buildings. I am minded to extend many of these changes to other buildings containing multiple dwellings and a common area. Areas I will be looking to address when reforming the fire safety Order include bringing clarity to the parts of buildings covered by the regime, including in particular the safety-critical boundaries between common areas and dwellings and the outside walls of buildings; clarifying who the responsible person should be and their role, including legal liability, regarding continual fire safety management; and making fire-risk assessments more robust. New requirements could include a fully qualified and experienced person carrying out assessments at specified intervals, and for the results to be documented and available on request to residents, regulators and others.

We will also explore specific duties around preserving compartmentation, which is vital to fire safety in any multi-dwelling premises. Such duties could apply to residents and contractors, as well as landlords and managing agents. We will also consider specific duties around raising the alarm, fire suppression, means of escape, and facilities for firefighters. The current arrangements for inspection, enforcement and sanctions will also be reviewed.

During the design and construction phase of residential buildings above 18m, a heightened inspection regime will be introduced, with hard stop points. Where problems are identified, progression to the next stage of construction will halt until the issues are addressed. There will also be additional building requirements to improve fire safety. These measures will increase transparency and help rebuild the public’s confidence in the system.

I'm also looking at ways to ensure managing agents are registered to support best practice, and stamp out rogue operators. An initial voluntary accreditation scheme for managing agents will generate evidence to inform the creation of a mandatory system. At occupation phase, there will be a requirement to register duty holders for homes of multiple occupancy, and set new requirements for duty holders for residential buildings over 18m in height to be licensed. 

Of course, these changes will improve matters for the future. But, over the past few months, a number of serious building safety defects in existing high-rise residential buildings have been brought to my attention. Newly identified fire risks are becoming apparent as buildings are undergoing detailed inspections following the fire at Grenfell Tower two years ago. I have been consistent in my message that the taxpayer cannot foot the bill for failures in the design or construction of private sector residential buildings. Building owners and developers should face up to their moral responsibility and put right these faults, or risk their professional reputation. However, I know many leaseholders have been frustrated by the lack of action and left distressed at the bills many face to fix the issues.

This Government has long held that sprinklers are the single most effective way to help protect people and property in the event of a fire. I'm therefore exploring how we might build on the foundation laid by our world-leading 2016 legislation that ensures all new and converted homes in Wales are fitted with sprinklers, and promote retrofit of sprinklers in more existing buildings. I have asked officials to examine the potential to develop a new low-cost loan scheme to support the retrofitting of sprinklers in existing blocks of flats within both the private and public sectors, and I will announce further detail of that in due course.

This is complex work and has required time to reflect on the variety of different professional opinions and potential policy proposals. It is vital that we get this right as the legislative changes will be complex, covering at least three key pieces of legislation. I am confident we can meet the targets set out in my published timetable and, importantly, that they will deliver on our commitment to reform the system for the better. Diolch. 

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.

Yes, I don't disagree, really, David, with anything that you've set out there. We are quite frustrated by the position. The UK Government is currently investigating whether to bring into force something called section 38 of the Building Act 1984, which is a part of the Building Act that addresses the civil liability and who is responsible for breaches of regulatory duty and so on. So, that consultation is live. We don't have the power to do it here, as I understand it, although if that's incorrect I'll write to say, but my understanding is we don't.

If they do bring that into force, it gives individuals the right to legal recourse where they suffer damage, which includes personal injury, death and so on, as a result of a breach of the duty imposed by building regulations. But, at the moment—. I've got pages and pages here of the complexity of the law relating to who is responsible if buildings had passed a regulatory regime at one point then fail it subsequently, and it's immensely complex. Andrew R.T. Davies asked a question in the business statement earlier about this, and I'm afraid the answer is that it's immensely complicated. It depends at what point they were inspected, by whom, what the relationship was, what your insurance position is and whether you're a leaseholder. It's really complicated and very individualised.

What is clear, though, is that the current regime does not place the onus on the building inspector. All they're doing is a spot check, so something could have gone wrong the day before that's now covered up or go wrong the day afterwards, so it's a system based on spot checking—it is not a guarantee that your building is compliant. Indeed, as you've rightly pointed out, we are now aware that many buildings that did pass those tests on a spot-check basis are not compliant, so it is a real problem.

We are in conversation—in particular, you mentioned Celestia. Officials are engaged in conversations with the fire authorities—the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Welsh Government officials have been meeting with Celestia's managing agents and Cardiff council, as well as fire and rescue, to understand the complex issues that are problematic there. I agree with you that leaseholders should not be expected to pay these, but, at the moment, it is not clear, unless they have a valid claim, who would pay unless the UK Government stumps up some cash, which I join you in calling for them to do.

In terms of the ACM cladding issues, those are slightly more complex. So, we had 111 high-rise buildings identified in Wales and 12 high-rise private residential buildings with ACM cladding that failed the initial screening tests, all of which were in Cardiff. All 12 buildings have either removed the cladding or have a remediation system in place. So, that particular problem is not a problem in Wales, although it continues to be a problem elsewhere. For social homes, we provided the funding to remedy the situation. So, in Wales that specific problem doesn't exist, although we continue to test other types of cladding. Sometimes it's not the cladding, it's the way it was put on, as you say, and the workmanship and so on, so these are very complex things.

In terms of the timing, I totally accept what you're saying. It would be lovely to get it done, but the other thing to do is to get it right. And so, these are really complex, and the more we go into them, the more differing professional views there are. So, I want to get it right. I hope the White Paper will enable us to make those policy choices, and then assuming they're not controversial, maybe we will be able to get that legislation through. I share your wish to do that, but we'll have to see what the White Paper produces.

I thank the Minister for the update provided in the statement. If the Grenfell fire has revealed anything the most, it's been just how neglected the housing conditions of many people have been for far, far too long. It also should highlight the dangers of lax regulation and planning, of which we're seeing the aftermath of here. 

I've got a few questions to focus on this particular aspect of the statement. First of all, there is no professional regulation for builders; anyone can set themselves up as a builder and obtain work that could then subsequently go on to become a fire hazard. We are one of the few countries where this is the case. So, will the Minister be prepared to look at establishing professional regulation in order to raise standards?

Secondly, your statement mentions the professional reputation of building owners and developers. However, in practice, this reputation appears to mean little to many of them. Part of this problem is that developers who apply for planning can't have their previous reputation taken into account by planning officers, who have to go on their word that promises will be kept. So, what steps will you take to change this, and ensure that the reputation of a developer is something that matters more to them than being able to pay a big bonus to their management?

Finally, I'd like to ask you about the last part of your statement that mentions the problems that leaseholders in the same buildings are facing, an issue that has been reported in the media recently, and has been raised with you this afternoon. Now, your statement is suggesting that a low-cost loan scheme be implemented to retrofit sprinklers, but I'm not really sure that that will help. One of the developers has already offered a loan anyway. This is an issue of injustice. Why should the residents who bought those flats in good faith have to pay to rectify those issues that should have been identified by the quality-control process that a responsible developer should have had in place? Instead, wouldn't you agree that developers who have profited from a lacklustre and laissez-faire planning and regulatory regime should be the ones who rectify this? A windfall tax on large developers would be one way of paying for this work to be rectified but, of course, we don't have the ability to do that here. But we do have the ability to create new taxes. So, will you instruct your officials to explore what forms of new taxation could be levied to ensure that those private building companies who've profited from poor safety can no longer do so?

Yes. So, just to be clear on the loan, I'm not talking about loaning it to the residents; I'm talking about loaning it to the developers, because some of them are saying that they can't afford it. So, I agree with that, but we've got to work through the system. So, I completely agree with you that the people who are actually resident should not be paying for it, just to be clear. But that's really complicated, because we can't trace them all, some of them have passed on the managing companies through three or four iterations, and there's one in my patch in Swansea where everybody's gone bankrupt in sight. They're really complex issues to work through. But just to be clear, I am trying to make sure that the residents are not the people who end up footing the bill for that. So, I completely agree that they should not be although, actually, getting a fault remedied is also very important, so we'll be bringing forward that, but I take the principle of that certainly on board.

On the tax windfall, I have absolutely no idea, but I'm very happy to undertake to speak with my colleague Rebecca Evans about whether such a thing would be possible in Wales, but I certainly take your point. One of the difficulties is that people set up single-purpose vehicle companies to build these things, and so the holding company—the one that's making all the profit—is often not the one that's on the hook locally. In responding to David Melding, I should have said that that's one of the complexities of the legal system, because trying to establish a contract between yourself and the ultimate holding company can be really complicated. It's one of the things that our system will have to overcome when we do put it into place; it's just immensely complicated who holds the existing thing.

And that's the other issue on the planning thing; I absolutely have a lot of sympathy with the idea that previous reputation should be allowed to be taken into account, but it's just so easy to make a single-purpose vehicle company to do that. So, it is about tracing individuals through the system as well as company names. So, whilst I accept the principle of that, in practice, that's also very problematic to do. But I do take the principle points, which we will certainly be looking at.

Professional regulations for builders: I've already had several conversations with professional bodies around us doing that. They are very keen that a regime should be in place right across Britain because a lot of them work across boundaries and so on. I'm very keen to pursue that. If the UK Government doesn't take it forward, though, we are very keen to look at what can be done here in Wales. And that goes for the whole chain: so, estate agents as well, managing agents, and the professional bodies for builders. But the profession itself is very keen that we don't put more barriers in the place of people who are often already on poor zero-hours contracts and all that kind of stuff. So, there's a lot of complexity for that. But they are also sympathetic to the idea that, you know, I can walk out of a building, call myself a carpenter and set myself up, and clearly would have not the faintest idea of how to do that, just to be clear.

So, I've got a lot of sympathy with what you're saying. What I'd like to do, Llywydd, is keep people in touch with our thinking as it develops, and when we put the White Paper out, to continue to have that policy conversation about the practical implications of some of the principles that I think are shared across the Chamber as to what we'd like to see.

Minister, I'm participating in this debate, really, because I want to support and agree with the various comments that have been made, and certainly about the state of the house building industry and some of the legacies we have.

I have a constituent who specifically has asked me to to raise the Celestia issue, and he is obviously one of many. He now lives in my constituency. He, of course, can't sell his flat because of the blighting that has taken place. And the fundamental scandal is this: we see it throughout Wales, I know, and I'm sure throughout the UK, in terms of why this house building monopoly appears to operate now with really very low ethical standards. You build rubbish houses, you then run away from them after making enormous profits, and you leave enormous legacies of problems and repairs and so on. I'm sure most Assembly Members have enormous caseloads of people who've moved into these new houses, sometimes with Government support in terms of the funding arrangements, only to have, year after year after year, the legacy of problems that exist and the problems that then are there when people want to try and sell their particular houses. It seems to me that the real crux, as we've all said from time to time, is that what we do need is a comprehensive, ethical housing and house building policy.

Part of the problem, of course, is that we lost in the public sector the capacity to build houses ourselves, and that is something we have to regain because what they have now is a monopoly over us, and they don't care. We have all met with them from time to time. We have these pointless meetings where it's almost like meeting with banks to talk about bank closures. You're meeting with some of these housing companies to talk about the housing problems they have, and you sit down and, yes, you get a lot of supportive nodding of the head, but nothing changes. The fact that we have modern houses being built that don't even have basic internet services as a guarantee—something that is absolutely fundamental.

So, we have to look, I think, at the weaknesses within our own planning arrangements: the fact that we are giving planning permission to these housing companies to extort these enormous profits and to rob the people who are actually buying these houses, and we have to look at alternatives in house building, whether it be co-operative house building, whether it be establishing our own companies in respect of that. And I know, Minister, that you are very supportive of all these sorts of things, but I think the time has come now where, within Wales, I think we can say, 'Look, enough is enough; this just cannot go on any longer.' The Celestia one is just an example of these companies. They build the houses, they reap the profits, then they accept no responsibility later on from them, and the leasehold is just another scandal. And I still remain of the view that we should just ban any further leasehold housing. There are other things that we can't do.

So, Minister, all I would ask is that you give serious thought to a comprehensive, ethical housing policy, but also to look at the moment at those people, for example, in Celestia who have these particular problems, to do what you can to bring these housing companies together, to bang their heads together and make them accept the responsibilities that they should be taking. It's one thing to say, 'We'll name and shame them', I think they've been shamed and I don't think they actually care that much anymore. But, certainly, whatever pressure—. And, quite frankly, if they can't comply, if they can't deliver to the standards they should, then surely, whether we should actually be allowing them to build houses within Wales, whether the planning system, somehow, should actually say, 'Look, if you can't commit to these ethical standards, then we don't want you building houses here in Wales.'

Well, thank you very much for that. I broadly agree with everything you've said. We are working, exactly as you say, on a comprehensive ethical policy. The White Paper will cover off some of the building safety bits of that. There are other bits around standards and green infrastructure and all the rest of it that we also want to put in place.

It is a near monopoly situation, but, actually, Lee Waters and I just met only yesterday with the SME building sector in Wales just to discuss how we could support the SME sector to step up to the plate, really, in terms of that and what they might require in terms of Government support to do that. Also, of course, now, we're able to build social housing at a pace and scale that we haven't had before, and that will drive a different kind of competition into the market. I think it cannot be said often enough that the standards that we build social housing to are higher, currently, than the standards that private sector housing is built to. I'm not sure that's widespread knowledge in Wales, so I'll just say it very clearly. We're looking to extend those standards right across the piece as fast as possible.

There is a whole issue—. I know that Mick Antoniw is aware of some of the legal issues around this about the privity of contract and so on, as a lawyer, so I'm going to lapse into legalese in a minute, but there are some real problems around the privity of contract arrangements and who is responsible. The issue that David Melding raised—and Leanne Wood raised, actually—about what the building control system is designed to do, because it is not designed, currently, to be a regulatory system enforced in the way that people are trying to make it—. What we need to do is look at a system that does do that, since a system based on trust has clearly failed, because, clearly, a system based on trust just means that people cut corners. So, we've got to come up with a better system than that and it's important to get that right so that we don't have another tragedy from unintended consequences later on down the line.

I do want to pay tribute, though, to our fire and rescue services in Wales. As I said in my statement, we've actually done very well in Wales. In fact, the fire service has done itself out of a job, almost, because they've done such a good job. We have a very comprehensive programme of building safety and even in the buildings that are now causing problems—and we've mentioned Celestia today, but that's not the only one in Wales; there are other buildings that have got those kinds of problems—but in all of those cases, the fire and rescue services are in there making sure that the right provisions are in place to keep people safe in their homes. So, I do want to emphasise that, Llywydd—that we are in that. So, if anybody knows of any other situations that we should be engaged in, I'm happy to do that. So, I share both Mick Antoniw's ambition and his frustration at the current system. We will be bringing at least part of what you're talking about forward. And in terms of the leaseholder thing, I think the First Minister said during FMQs—I will be responding to the expert report shortly, saying what we intend to do in Wales in that regard as well.

I want to raise some issues that have already been touched upon by you, Minister, and, indeed, other contributors, and that's around private sector high-rise residential buildings. Just last week, the equality committee received correspondence from a leaseholder raising very significant concerns about basic quality and fire safety measures and the lack of them, and this followed a level 4 survey, which found defects around compartmentation with no effective fire stopping in the compartment wall between each flat and the common corridor. I know this issue has been raised before in Plenary and we're writing to you now, in fact, regarding this case, with more detail on the specific complex involved. But I believe it also links to broader concerns about the private sector and these high-rise residential blocks. We know, for example, that a previous level 4 survey found similar issues with fire safety in another building in south Wales, and this was something that we explored in our report on fire safety in high-rise private sector buildings late last year. So, we think it's very concerning, really, that, of the two buildings surveyed to the extent of a level 4 survey, very basic fire safety measures were lacking. And I think it begs the question, really, for you and for all of us, as to how confident we can be with regard to other private sector high-rise residential buildings in Wales in terms of those issues and the lack of those basic standards.

In our report on fire safety, Minister, we recommended that Welsh Government explore the feasibility of ensuring level 4 surveys for all high-rise residential buildings, and we made this recommendation because we were concerned that people could be living unknowingly in buildings with these basic fire safety defects. So, we were pleased that Welsh Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that, as part of the response to the Hackitt review, you would be addressing these issues and you would consider the need for invasive building surveys and who is best-placed to undertake them. However, when the road map was published, it didn't address the issue directly, although the road map did note that there was little in law to require meaningful improvements to the fire safety of existing buildings over the course of their life cycle. It also said that Welsh Government needs to consider how it will ensure all buildings could progressively be brought up to the highest standards now recommended. So, I'd be grateful, really, Minister if you could outline what further consideration is being given to mandating the use of level 4 invasive surveys for all existing high-rise residential buildings in the private sector in Wales.

Thank you for that, John. I concur broadly with the thrust of that. You will know from various interchanges we've had on this that the road map recommends further work is required to understand what the capacity issues and what the resources to undertake that kind of testing might be in Wales, and we've got continual engagement with the UK Government and their competence steering group on the same issue, because those capacity issues are similar across Wales. So, we've got workforce planning and consideration of capacity issues both right now and in the future as a key part of the design and construction task and finish group of the road map working group, and we've already begun the work with regard to future workforce planning.

I would love to be able to say to you, 'Yes, we will do that', but I know that local authorities wouldn't be able to do that at the moment. So, what we're doing is working to see how fast we can do it with the capacity that we have, and how fast we can grow the capacity, because just announcing that we're going to do it doesn't produce magically the people who can and are competent to do that, and can carry out an inspection to the right level of competence and so on. So, I'm still accepting in principle what you say; we're still working very hard on increasing the capacity to be able to deliver it.

Thank you, Minister—

Sorry, Llywydd, can I just say one thing? I beg your indulgence. In response to something that Rhun brought up in my question session last week, I inadvertently said that Llinos—I was very praising of Llinos, and I'd like to reiterate those comments, but I inadvertently said she was a member of the finance sub-group of the partnership council, and I just want to correct the record and say that she's not. I'd become confused with the number of meetings of the partnership council I've been to. She's not a member of that specific sub-group. I just wanted to correct the record in that regard. Sorry.

Okay. The record is corrected.