I would like to place on record that, in principle, we very much support the bringing forward of a Bill that will actually ensure that our residents can feel safe in their homes and that we never, ever witness anything again like the Grenfell tragedy. As Dame Judith Hackitt has made clear, there is a need for a radical rethink of the whole system and how it works. She has described this situation as a

'race to the bottom caused either through ignorance, indifference or because the system does not facilitate good practice.'

Now, this Welsh Parliament needs to deliver the best quality and safest buildings possible in order that our residents can feel safe and comfortable in their homes. I appreciate that this is no easy task, as the comprehensive consultation document shows, but I thank the Minister for creating a White Paper that does outline a way forward for Wales. Frustratingly, though, the White Paper comes 32 months after Dame Hackitt's final report, and over three and a half years since the Grenfell tragedy.

In the White Paper, Minister, you have proposed that a joint inspection team be established for an initial period of two years. How realistic is it, do you feel, that it should take to establish a new building safety regime for Wales?

There are many points that I welcome in the proposals, and I'll say at this point that when we do come to scrutinise the Bill, it is such an important piece of legislation coming forward that we've all got to work across parties to ensure that the Bill does exactly what we're all hoping it will do.

So, I welcome some of the proposals, including a new general duty to maintain compartmentation; the aim of providing clarity with regard to who is responsible for safety in multi-occupied residential buildings, not just during the building of them but throughout the lifecycle—I think, too often, we've all been aware of everybody trying to pass the buck when it comes to finding out who the responsible person is, and that has to stop; making fire and rescue authorities specific consultees and having a single process for escalating concerns to the regulator.

The scope of the proposed regime would capture a house converted into two flats through to a high-rise apartment block. You are contemplating two categories; category 2 could encompass 37,000 properties and around 130,000 flats. Is it reasonable to have a house that is converted into two flats in the same category as a five-storey, purpose-built block of flats?

Now, consideration ought to be given to splitting category 2 in two. Whilst I'm aware that you could set out the legislation in a way that would allow category classifications to be amended via regulations, we need to get this right in the first place so that whatever the number of categories, all will be expected to have an annual fire risk assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified person. This is what I worry about: whether this could, potentially, be the Achilles heel.

Your team has already advised me that there are no estimates yet as to how many suitably qualified individuals there are presently in Wales to assess around 37,000 properties annually, and whether the new requirement would actually highlight a vast shortage of these qualified people, and whether it could see the cost and demand for the service rocket. That research does need to be commissioned, so I implore you to do this quickly and liaise with your Cabinet so to pursue a boost via education and bringing apprenticeships into the frame. Now, according to section 6 of the local authority, they would provide the building control function for all category 1 properties. It is noted that, where there are capacity issues in one authority, the service could be provided by another. So, would the other authority be financially resourced for the service? And can you provide further details about the consideration you have given already to existing capacity issues at local authorities? We know that it's some of these departments that have take the massive hit of some of the settlement problems that they've had as a result of poor local settlements, my own included here.

Now, I am very interested in the three gateways and note that the final one would require the principle contractor to produce a final declaration confirming that the building fully complies with building regulations. So, it would be down to the local authority to decide whether to accept that declaration, and we know now that, like with COVID, we're vastly behind with planning permissions. We're behind in planning enforcements, either through COVID or through a lack of resources. We know that—