Welcome back. We'll move on to the debate on a Member's legislative proposal—a cladding safety Bill. And I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the motion. 

Motion NDM7828 Rhys ab Owen, Mike Hedges, Peter Fox

Supported by Jane Dodds, Mabon ap Gwynfor

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes a proposal for a Bill to ensure safety of cladding on buildings in Wales.

2. Notes that the purpose of this Bill would be to ensure the safety of residents by making sure safe cladding is available on buildings.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to start this debate by quoting Non and Gwenallt Rees, who don't live very far from this place:

'Why are we as owners of flats responsible for facing huge costs of solving the problem of cladding created by others?'

And I believe that all of us can agree with that statement. It's not up to them to pay for the mistakes of others. 

Through no fault of their own, hundreds, if not thousands, like Gwenallt and Non Rees, are facing huge insurance costs, service charges and bills to deal with the cladding scandal. Many have the mental strain of worrying that they might live in an unsafe building and cannot move. I have met many of these residents in my six months here in the Senedd, and the strain is obvious on the faces of so many. One told me that he lies in bed at night not only worrying about crippling financial costs, but also being terrified for the safety of his loved ones. 

So, thank you from the bottom of my heart to those Members, across parties, who have co-submitted this debate with me, namely Peter Fox and Mike Hedges, and to the Members who have supported this debate, namely Mabon ap Gwynfor and Jane Dodds. This demonstrates clearly that there is obvious cross-party support here in the Senedd to support Gwenallt and Non and the thousands of others who are in the same situation. I would also like to thank two others: thank you to David Melding and to Leanne Wood, two others who raised this issue regularly in the fifth Senedd. And I'm very pleased that the co-operation agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government includes building safety. There are vital principles in this agreement. I am pleased that significant reform of the building safety system is part of the agreement. As the agreement states, the current system has enabled, time after time, a culture of cutting corners at the cost of public safety. 

I am also very pleased to hear about the introduction of the second part of the Welsh building safety fund, and I look forward to reading the details soon. So, when, Minister, will residents hear more about the details of this second stage? And when will the funding for the first tranche be released? And will that funding include investigation costs that have already been paid?

The agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Government is a positive step forward, but we need urgent solutions to this. Over four years of mental anguish, of a lack of sleep, of financial pressures, have left their mark on residents. This has to come to an end. I was talking to one person today with his wife suffering from cancer; they shouldn't be having to worry about this too.

I'd like to work with the Welsh Government in future to seek powers to introduce a windfall tax on major developers. That funding in future would be able to pay for poor building outcomes, for builders cutting corners, rather than leaving it up to residents to fight a long and costly battle on their own.

The cladding scandal is a perfect example of where the devolution settlement is failing the people of Wales at the moment. The residents feel as if they're part of a ping-pong game between Westminster and the Welsh Government. They feel that they are not being listened to. We want assurances that the money announced by Robert Jenrick, when he was housing Minister earlier this year, the £3.5 billion, will be seen as UK spend, and therefore we, in Wales, will get a share. Has the Welsh Minister received an answer to that yet? But, if it does come down to the Welsh Government, in the additional £2.3 billion in block grant, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, with consequential does the Minister think it will be enough to resolve the cladding scandal here in Wales?

I sincerely hope that we go down the Australian model—the Australian approach—whereby Government firstly reimburses leaseholders for their costs and subsequently claims these costs back from employees. Obviously Government has the power, has the influence, which leaseholders don't.

Finally, this whole scandal has shone a light on the whole issue of the rights of leaseholders. Isn't it about time that we bring to an end this relic of the past, this archaic system, as they have done in Scotland, Ireland and across the common world? I look forward to a Welsh Bill that finally brings this cladding scandal in Wales to an end. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I first thank Rhys ab Owen for tabling this important debate and for inviting me to support his legislative proposal? I am very pleased to see cross-party support for the motion before us today, and I think this underlines the seriousness with which all of us across this Chamber are approaching this issue.

My contribution to the debate is focused on issues that are facing a number of my constituents that have been raised with me. In saying this, I would like to reflect on all of the work that has been carried out by my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders, who leads on building safety for the Welsh Conservative group. As I've mentioned, Deputy Llywydd, a number of constituents who own properties in the Celestia development in Cardiff Bay have contacted my office about their concerns about the scale of the cladding issues facing residents. In fact, as I understand it, some residents have recently been asked to pay a service charge of up to £20,000 next year to begin repair works on the development. This level of subsidy will be required for a number of years to meet the ongoing work that will be needed to ensure the safety of the building. I'm sure that Members from across the Chamber will agree with me that this is grossly unfair. Residents, many of whom simply cannot afford to pay anywhere near that level of service charge, should not have to foot the bill for something that is not their fault. Meanwhile, another constituent has said that they are unable to sell their property due to these issues, and this has had a significant impact on their retirement plans. Their money is tied up in what they call 'worthless homes'.

Now, I understand that this is a complex issue that requires close working between Welsh and UK Governments, therefore, I think Members would appreciate an update on any recent discussions that the Minister may have had with her counterparts from across the UK on this issue. Residents have said to me that the establishment of Welsh building fund is urgently needed, so that developments like Celestia can begin work to address their fire and construction defects. Minister, would you be able to confirm whether it is your intention to provide financial support directly to residents to support them to meet ongoing costs and when this will be made available?

Ultimately, however, action is needed to prevent these issues from happening again. We really need to see new legislation to not only tighten up the rules around the use of cladding, but to also ensure that the developers retain legal responsibility for addressing defects that are as a result of the design and construction of a building.

In closing, I would like to reflect on the words of a constituent who has given me permission to quote their feelings on this matter. They say,

'The mental health of residents is being damaged. In January 2022, our wallets will be damaged too by virtue of a 200 per cent increase in the service charge. This inflated request is likely to remain for around five years. The consequence: people will lose their homes, people will lose properties where bought to provide a pension, and remember that the only people who are suffering are the innocent.'

I hope all Members will be supporting this important proposal. Thank you.

I'm not going to repeat anything said by either Rhys or Peter, but the tragedy of Grenfell Tower saw 72 people lose their lives. It was reported earlier this year that surveys on high-rise buildings across the UK, following the fire, have shown that combustible cladding and fire safety defects are causing issues in other high-rise buildings—lots of other high-rise buildings. The Welsh Government estimated a third of high-rise buildings across the country may need remediation work, with defects ranging from minor to significant. There are currently 148 high-rise residential buildings across Wales.

The public inquiry that followed the incident at Grenfell Tower has revealed that one of the main reasons the fire spread was the type of cladding that was used on the exterior of the building. In my constituency, I'm told that residents of South Quay in SA1 will see their service charges increase more than £450,000 between them to pay for cladding and insurance work. However, the cost to rectify all issues across the site in the years to come has been estimated at over £3 million.

I agree with what the Minister has previously said, that developers who have made millions and millions of pounds out of these buildings ought to pay. Unfortunately, some of them were built by the defunct Carillion, others may have been built by other companies or single-purpose vehicles that now no longer exist.

In two places in my constituency, both the Copper Quarter and SA1 developments, there is a serious concern regarding the issue of cladding. People owning properties are concerned about their safety and the catastrophic drop in value of their properties, many of which have been bought on a mortgage and are becoming very difficult, if not impossible, to sell. To many of the people affected, the cladding issue is the biggest issue in their lives.

It's not purely a Welsh issue, and Members will be aware of the complex challenges facing multi-occupied buildings across the United Kingdom. This is a problem throughout the whole of Great Britain, and the funding will have to come from the Westminster Government. For too long, residents of affected buildings have been denied the right of confidence in the safety of their homes and the ability to move on, to sell their homes, move somewhere else; something all the rest of us take for granted, that if we've got a house or building, we sell it, we can then buy something; we can either trade up or trade down. These people can't; they are stuck, and they are really upset, and I can understand why they're upset. And people talk about mental health a lot in here. Can you think of anything to affect your mental health worse than having a position where you've got a huge debt, which you are paying, but you can do nothing with? You can't solve the problem of the debt, you've got substantial negative equity and you cannot see a way out of it, but you've got additional bills likely to come. I've had grown men and women crying to me on the telephone regarding the effect this is having on them. This is a real issue affecting real people. Something has to be done. We need funding from Westminster and a charge on building companies to deal with this serious problem, and we just have to deal with it, otherwise a lot of people are going to be in a very bad state.

Thank you very much, Rhys, if I may thank him, Deputy Presiding Officer, for bringing this debate forward today. And thank you also to Mike Hedges and Peter Fox for supporting this debate.

Here, we have quite simply an issue of fundamental justice. Who should pay for the work of assessing and remedying these large buildings that are a threat to the health and safety of the people living there? Is it the residents, the tenants of owners, who should pay through an increase in their rents? Is it the leaseholders who bought the flats without knowing of the problems because those problems weren't yet known? Is it the owners of the buildings? What about us, the taxpayers, through the Government? Or is it those who initially constructed these buildings that should pay for this? Four years after the Grenfell tragedy, we are still grappling with this question.

Now, unfortunately, the greed and selfishness of some means that they aren't willing to accept blame or responsibility for the significant problems that are a threat to people's health and lives. Today, hundreds if not thousands of people are suffering serious anxiety as they're concerned about the safety of their homes, or concerned as to how they can pay for the remedial actions when they have no blame in this situation.

In addition to this, the Government has no clear data as to how many buildings exactly need work, never mind how many people are affected by this. But in terms of the details of any legislation to tackle the issue of the safety of cladding, it's worth noting that there are no statutory measures to assess external walls and cladding or a document to confirm the fire safety of a building as far as cladding is concerned. That doesn't exist at the moment. These are fundamental failings that the Government could tackle without having to rely on Westminster. It's regrettable that four years have passed since the Grenfell tragedy and that the Government hasn't brought a Bill before the Senedd as of yet, and that the Government is now reliant on Conservatives in Westminster to push it into action. Wales has the right to see its own legislation with the voice of Welsh stakeholders at the heart of the formulation of that legislation. That's why I support this proposal put forward by Rhys ab Owen today. Thank you.

Thank you to Rhys and others who support this.

And let's start with the individuals, because that is what it's all about. As Rhys, Mike and Peter have talked about, this is about people, people like the leaseholders in South Quay in Swansea, who are facing service charge increases of up to £4,000 a year; people like the leaseholders in Cardiff, facing costs of up to £8,000 a year, with that figure sadly set to rise; people who feel that they are waiting for action as costs rise, feeling that their lives are on hold. Now, imagine the mental health and stress that must mean for those people. It is beyond, certainly, my imagination.

Very briefly, I just want to say that I get that the Welsh Government say that this is something that is not the responsibility of the public purse and that it is down to developers, but that is absolutely no help to those people that we're aware of—those people in those flats who are just hanging by a thread. I would urge the Welsh Government to consider the model that has been outlined by my colleague Rhys that is in Australia at the moment, because this is about not just Wales, not just the UK, but other countries. We can learn, we can look at what works there. Let us make sure that we think about those people and those individuals. Let us adopt the Australia model—give the money, recoup the costs later—because that's what we should be doing. We need to protect those people and their mental health. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Over four years and five months have passed since the catastrophe at Grenfell Tower, where 72 people sadly and devastatingly died. Now, there are residents across Wales living in fear in flats to this day. So, how can it be the case that, four years on from the tragedy, whilst announcing that the Welsh Government will fund fire-safety surveys for multi-occupied buildings over 11m, the Minister for Climate Change could state that

'What we do not yet know is exactly how many buildings are affected and to what extent'?

I think that is a scandal. On the twenty-ninth, the Minister reiterated, and I quote,

'we do not yet know exactly how many buildings are affected by fire safety defects and to what extent.'

You just keep pushing it into the long grass. In my view, it's exactly what you have said, Jane, and others have articulately mentioned here today. This situation isn't going to go away with rhetoric from the Welsh Government Minister, and I am really quite upset to think that this could even be used politically by saying, 'We're waiting for the UK Government.' Such information that is required now to put an effective strategy in place is required. So, I would be pleased if the Minister would actually take this matter very, very seriously indeed and update us on what progress is being made in securing the figures and detail as to the extent of defects.

This, to me, is almost like another rehearsal of conversations we've held in this Senedd during the last term when I spoke up on issues such as this. You know, for all the new Members that are here, it is actually quite sad to be reiterating the need for us to be doing this. For one block, the total cost of repair work, including the replacement of cladding, has been estimated at £60,000 per flat. I've spoken to people living in these properties, and they say they go to bed fearful for their own lives and they cannot sleep, which again endorses what you've said, Jane, about mental health issues. We know there is cross-party consensus on the need to ensure that the financial burden does not fall on the residents. Avoiding such an outcome is a complex matter, but I am aware the Minister has had a round-table meeting with developers just last month, so details on this outcome would be helpful, Minister. 

This legislative proposal would be a key opportunity through which we could legislate to ensure that this burden, to make sure safe cladding is available on buildings, falls with the developer rather than the leaseholder. It could also be a means through which to further explore the proposal of a buy-out scheme to support leaseholders who are impacted by building safety and would prefer to sell their property. However, I do hope that Rhys, Mike, Peter and Jane will also agree that legislation needs to go even further and address safety issues such as maintaining compartmentation. The building safety White Paper started this process, but, despite the consultation closing on 12 April of this year, the Welsh Government website is reporting just today that

'The responses are currently being reviewed and we aim to publish a summary and Government response in Autumn 2021.'

The Member needs to conclude now.

You do have my support, but I wonder whether the proposal for the cladding safety Bill could be incorporated into ongoing work on building safety. Diolch.

I call on the Minister for Climate Change, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The remediation of unsafe high-rise residential buildings is absolutely a priority for the Welsh Government, and combustible cladding is one part of that. [Inaudible.]

Minister, we've lost your sound. We've got it back. Do you want to—? We heard the first sentence, but that was about it.

Okay. I don't know what's happening there. Can you hear me now?

Yes. 

Okay. So, I started by saying that the remediation of unsafe, high-rise residential buildings is a priority for the Welsh Government, and combustible cladding is one part of that. We've consistently—[Inaudible.]—and it's right—. Has it gone again?

There's something. We got it consistently and then we lost you again. I think your microphone up above your head isn't helping.

It's not above my head, it's right here. Anyway, I'll take my headphones off and see if I can make any difference with that. Is that better or is that worse?

That's better.

Okay, I'll try it like that. There's a building site just outside my room here, so I just hope there aren't too many noises off. 

So, I was just saying that we've consistently held the view that leaseholders did not create the issues that have been identified, and it's right that those responsible should pay to rectify them. In October 2020 I wrote an open letter to developers to that effect, and in October of this year I met with a number of developers, alongside local councils, to discuss their plans for remediating buildings with safety defects. We are very pleased that a number of Welsh developers have since set aside funds to replace cladding and address other fire safety work on properties in Wales. It's reassuring to see that, in some cases, the commitment does extend beyond just the cladding where necessary to make those buildings safe, and that they are also taking responsibility for buildings under 18m. However, it is a matter of regret that some of the large developers responsible for these buildings have not come to that process and have not yet responded to that, so I will be getting in touch with them again to try and force them to the table, though we have no powers at the moment to be able to make them do so.

We also put the Building (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2019 in place, and they came into force in January 2020. That bans combustible materials from the exterior of high-rise residential buildings, hospitals and care homes. We've made significant progress in relation to non-compliant ACM, as it's called—aluminium composite material cladding—as was found on the Grenfell Tower. We've already seen all unsafe ACM removed from the majority of high-rise buildings in Wales, and the last remaining buildings have work under way on them right now.

But we know that cladding is by no means the only building safety issue. The Welsh Government has always been clear that our approach needs to be absolutely holistic, dealing with a multitude of issues like firebreaks, compartmentation, fire escape routes, and so on. We know that the effects are having a significant impact on leaseholders and residents. I myself have met with a very large number of them over the course of many months, and we know that this is having an effect financially and from a well-being perspective, as all the Members who've contributed today have said.

We're committed to supporting residents and leaseholders and we're working hard to develop those options. Our expressions of interest opened for the Welsh building safety fund on 30 September. We've had well over 100 responses to that so far. They will identify the measures and actions required to make the multiresidential buildings as safe as can be, and protect lives and property. We haven't restricted that to buildings over 18m; we've taken that down below that in order to make sure we catch all of the people who are affected, and we intend to offer a package of support to leaseholders and residents that will allow them to feel safe in their homes and make decisions about the future. 

We also are very keen to make further announcements on the next stage of our building safety passport fund, but as you are all aware, the comprehensive spending review has been disappointing for Wales. In terms of the consequentials, the UK Government did not make it clear that there was a consequential arising out of Robert Jenrick's remarks prior to his being sacked from the Cabinet, and of course now there's been a comprehensive spending review, so all of that has been realigned, so it's impossible to follow that through. What we do know is that, given the amount of money we've had through the comprehensive spending review, we certainly have not had the level of consequential we would have expected.

Nevertheless, we are going ahead with our building safety plans. We hope to have surveyors on site for all of the buildings that have expressed an interest in this in January. We are working very hard with the construction industry and the insurance industry to make sure that we have both the surveyors who are capable of doing these surveys and the work stream in place and the contractors available. As we understand what the extent of the remediation work that's necessary for these buildings is, we'll be able to look at how much funding we have. We've allocated some funding to it, but the truth is we don't know what the extent of the difficulty is in each of the buildings, and unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all; each building will have its own completely different, complex set of issues that require remediation. We're also working to finalise the detail of a buy-out scheme to help those who find themselves in the most difficult circumstances as a result of these issues. I'm hoping to announce that shortly to the Senedd.

The scale of the problem is enormous. Each building is different, and the answer about whether the funding is enough is I simply do not know. There's no point in Janet Finch-Saunders berating me about it—I can't make it up out of thin air—and unlike the UK Government, I'm not in the habit of just announcing things in order to make it seem better whilst not actually doing anything about it. We're only presented with the total change from Whitehall department settlements at spending reviews, so I have no detail of the individual UK programme changes. I am going to be bringing that up with my counterpart UK Ministers as soon as I'm able to meet with them.  

On leaseholder reform, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill currently progressing through Parliament will reduce ground rents on new leases to a peppercorn, and we are working on a Bill to be introduced later in the UK Parliament to implement the wide-ranging reforms to leasehold proposed by the Law Commission, some of which are devolved, it is true, but many of which are not, and we require the things that are not devolved to be changed as well in order to help leaseholders.

In terms of the windfall tax, we have had real difficulty getting the UK Government to even agree with us about a vacant land tax, so goodness knows how long it will take them to do this. And, at the same time, we have to be sure that by putting a windfall tax on developers in Wales, we don't just drive them across the border to England. We are absolutely committed to financial support to help fund remediation in a way that's fair to the leaseholders and to taxpayers, and we are working with the UK Government on a windfall tax across the building industry in Wales, with the money coming to Wales.

The last thing I wanted to say, Deputy Llywydd, is that the building safety Bill that we are bringing forward will put right all of the problems from that point onwards. We are working with councils at the moment to make sure that we are doing what we can to ensure that people are safe in their homes, and that we have the right fire safety and protection in place for them. But, as I have said very many times in this Chamber and I will reiterate one last time, a home in Britain is not just a place to live—it's often an investment, and the difficulty is to remediate the buildings in a way that keeps people safe without them losing their investment, because I've every sympathy with the situation they find themselves in. And that, regardless of what anybody will tell you to the contrary, is a very, very difficult and complex thing to do, and we are working at pace to work our way through those complex issues. 

I'm delighted there's cross-party support for this, and I'm delighted to have had this debate in the Chamber. 

I call on Rhys ab Owen to reply to the debate. 

Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. I'm glad to hear about the building safety Bill that will be brought forward in this Senedd. Hopefully, that can be done sooner rather than later. I'm also glad to hear about surveyors being on site in January, but I am very disappointed with two things—one being the large developers not willing even to entertain discussions with you, Minister. That is hugely disappointing, and I hope Welsh Government and local authorities bear that in mind when it comes to procurement policy, because if they're not willing even to discuss, there should be penalties for that because they're not the type of developers we should be working with. 

The second huge disappointment that's obvious from your answers is yet again the inter-governmental breakdown of relationships between Welsh Government and UK Government, and I look here to my colleagues here and colleagues on the Labour benches. This needs to be sorted out, because only one group are missing out, are suffering because of this, and these are the leaseholders themselves. We need to sort this out. Work together, for God's sake.

Peter Fox, thank you for your support. Thank you for raising this issue previous to this in the Senedd. I know the residents are very happy, and I agree developers should not get away. You mentioned meeting people from Celestia; I met them again today. They had a kettle with them. I thought, 'Why on earth have they got a kettle with them?' It's because they are of the clear view that a person purchasing a kettle has more consumer rights, has more protection, than a leaseholder. Well, that is absolutely shocking. 

As Mike Hedges said, people's lives are on hold. Young families, growing families can't move. Pensioners who are on the eighth floor can't move. It is not good enough.  

Mabon ap Gwynfor asked, 'Who is responsible?', and he said that it's the greed of some causing difficulties and anguish to others. And I hope we will have this Welsh legislation that the Minister has mentioned as soon as possible. 

Jane Dodds also mentioned people's lives being on hold, and reminded us again that people are at the centre of this.

I agree with Janet Finch-Saunders—we need to know the number. And I agree that fire safety is far more than just cladding, as the Minister also mentioned.

I hope—I see that time is up, but I very much hope that Members will support this motion. Thank you very much.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.