Item 9, the second Welsh Conservative debate, on the Building Safety Act 2022. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Motion NDM8127 Darren Millar

To propose that the Senedd:

Calls on the Welsh Government to work with all political parties in the Welsh Parliament to facilitate a prompt enactment that incorporates sections 116 to 125 of the Building Safety Act 2022 into Welsh law to strengthen residents’ rights in Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Welsh Labour would have you believe that they are working incredibly hard to ensure those buildings affected by the cladding issues are safe, and I'm sorry, Members, but this is simply not the case. As of last month, only 68 of 163 buildings had received intrusive surveys. Over five and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, the fact that leaseholders are still stuck at the survey stage is simply unacceptable. Leaseholders are facing rising insurance costs due to the high-risk profile of the buildings. One couple have claimed insurance costs have risen from £67,000 to £624,000 per year, an increase of 831 per cent.

Minister, your Government, you, have received £60 million in capital and £1.7 million in revenue from the UK Conservative Government for cladding remediation and building safety work. In response to a freedom of information request that asked for the total of money spent on building safety work from the allocation, you've responded with 'nil'. Of the £375 million you've made available to tackling building safety, how much has now been spent, and how many buildings have you made safe?

Failure is what we're also seeing with the leaseholder support scheme. It was disclosed earlier this month that only one applicant is in receipt of independent advice, and three are being taken forward to purchase. We have thousands of victims affected by this, so the stats speak for themselves. You've got to now start focusing on ensuring that the crux of the problems is addressed.

Last April, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP announced for England that major home builders accounting for half of new homes have pledged to fix all unsafe tall buildings they've had a role in developing. Yet, you took until July to even catch up. So, as of today, can you clarify whether Laing O'Rourke, Westmark and Kier—now Tilia—have responded at all? Because I know in one debate, you mentioned that you were having problems interacting and getting engagement and responses from them. Well, I have to be honest, when I write to people, I usually get a response, because I don't let go.

Another area where Wales has fallen behind England is on legal rights, and I think we're all very proud here today to support the Welsh Cladiators section 116 to 125 campaign, which is the gist of the motion by Darren Millar. For example, section 123 enables remediation orders to be made by the first-tier tribunal

'requiring a relevant landlord to remedy specified relevant defects in a specified relevant building by a specified time.'

Section 124 enables orders to be made

'requiring a specified body corporate or partnership to make payments to a specified person, for the purpose of meeting costs incurred or to be incurred in remedying relevant defects'. 

And section 126 relates to

'meeting costs incurred or to be incurred in remedying relevant defects' when a landlord is winding up a company.

Despite me raising the exact points in the motion today with the First Minister on 18 October, a month later, here we are, having to discuss the same problem. There was a hint in his response to me that things could maybe go forward, but I'm still at a total loss as to why we on these benches are having to push you in the way we are. This is inexcusable when considering that the English Building Safety Act is now ready. You could, as is being done for single-use plastics—. When it suits this Welsh Government, you fast-track legislation through this Welsh Parliament, and yet now that is not the case. How much worse must the lives of those trapped leaseholders be before this Welsh Government takes the decisive actions we are calling for?

I know that Members in Plaid Cymru have been supportive of the Welsh Cladiators campaign, as has Jane Dodds, and we are prepared to go to a public meeting on this now and actually meet up and hold this Welsh Labour Government to account. I'm glad the First Minister has arrived to hear the very end of this debate from me. Maybe other Members will make the point: First Minister and Minister, you are failing these people in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders for presenting this motion today. Let's remind ourselves why we're still debating this issue today, nearly five and a half years after the terrible tragedy at Grenfell. The damning fact is that the current building safety system is a system that has allowed a culture of cutting corners at the expense of public safety.

I'll never forget seeing that tragedy at Grenfell Tower unfold back in 2017. In the early hours of 14 June, a fire began burning through Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey residential block in west London. Seventy-one people died as a result of that fire. Others died months later as a result of smoke inhalation. But many people—those who escaped the fire, the families of the dead, those who witnessed this tragedy—still live with horrific physical and mental scars and continue to suffer today.

Since the disaster, a large number of residential buildings in this disunited kingdom, including several in Wales, have been found to have unsafe flammable cladding while some have other fire safety deficiencies such as poor compartments and firebreaks to prevent the spread of fires within buildings. People are afraid, and people have endured this fear for over five years. Five years without action.

It's been 18 months since the election, a year and a half without action here in Wales. Leaseholders and tenants have been trapped in properties from which they can't move, their quality of life and mental health have deteriorated, and it's high time we responded to this nightmare scenario urgently through a radical reform programme and further financial support.

As my party spokesman on housing and planning, I'd like to take a moment to welcome the co-operation agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Government. The agreement contains a range of commitments, including commitments to radically reform the existing building safety system and to introduce the second phase of the Welsh building safety fund. I'm glad that we're working together on this vital issue and moving some of the agenda forward.

No-one can truly argue against the sentiment behind the motion today. We all agree that we need to protect residents, and today the Welsh Conservatives are pushing for the incorporation of sections 116 to 125 of the Building Safety Act, as we heard just now from Janet Finch-Saunders, into Welsh law. But I must express a concern around this. Sections 116 to 125 provide leaseholders with the option to take legal action against a developer who is not remediating fire safety defects, but this means that they'd be required to pay legal fees. So, do the Tories think leaseholders should have to pay for issues that aren't their fault?

There's also a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to legislation too. You can't just parachute pieces of UK legislation into Welsh legislation; there are different frameworks at work. Therefore, legislation must be tailored for Wales, and the UK Act was tailored for England. Some of the 2022 Act applies to Wales, of course, and those provisions were addressed through the legislative consent process, but trying to shoehorn—

Mabon, you need to conclude now, please.

Trying to shoehorn a piece of English legislation into current Welsh law without passing a Welsh Act is not how things should work. But we can't let the Welsh Government off the hook here; it's been a year and a half since the election, and we haven't seen legislation in the area. The Welsh Government can talk of time constraints, a full legislative programme and a lengthy legislative process all they like, but it doesn't change the fact that people have been waiting for support and a response to this issue for guarantees of safety and justice.

We will be supporting the motion today, but let me be clear that we're supporting the principle behind the motion. It's an expression of support for the sentiments behind the motion. We don't think that transporting English legislation into Welsh law wholesale is the answer. We need our own legislation on the issue, not English legislation made in England, for England. We need legislation—

Mabon, conclude now, please.

—made in Wales for Wales, as a matter of urgency.

Thank you for your patience.

I thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate here today. I have a very brief period of time, but we do know that, over five years ago, Grenfell happened, with 72 people dying in that. And in the initial findings from the inquiry, only from six days ago, Richard Millett, the counsel to the inquiry, said, 'Every single death was avoidable'. The final report, as we know, is due in October 2023.

Here in the Senedd, we can see the flats affected by poor building safety standards. Many of us, I know—and I know the same is the case with yourself, Minister—have met with those people affected, and in Swansea as well. The arguments for action have been well rehearsed, and we need to see it happen now. I'm not wanting to blame anyone. We need to work together on this to move this forward, to make sure that the people in Wales have the same rights, remedies and protections as leaseholders in England. 

Finishing, may I use the words of Richard Millett again? He said in the inquiry, which was only six days ago, after four and a half years of the inquiry, he admitted his initial fears that the process would become a 'merry-go-round of buck-passing'. Unfortunately, he felt that that had been confirmed. I really don't want to see that here in Wales, and I do want to see some action. I look forward to hearing from the Minister later. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Clearly, the Grenfell fire illustrated a failure of building regulations and a failure of enforcement, which all public bodies and private contractors have to bear some responsibility for. It's really unedifying that different contractors are still squabbling over who is responsible and, meanwhile, leaseholders are left in a completely impossible situation.

The Welsh Government has been endeavouring to engage with all the contractors who were involved in building these high-rise buildings in Wales, and it would be useful to know how many have yet to comply with that offer. I appreciate the partnership approach that the Welsh Government is taking, but the question has to be: what do we do about those who simply want to try and avoid their responsibilities and are sitting on their hands and not rectifying the buildings they built, which have been inadequately constructed? 

I want to know on the specifics whether the Welsh Government notifies developers when you do a digital survey, and how fast we can expect Welsh Government to move from digital to physical surveys where there are particular issues, particularly of denial. If you do notify developers, are they then the ones charged to notify tenants of the work that the Welsh Government has done, or does the Welsh Government notify tenants directly? If not, how on earth do leaseholders know what's happening if potential rogue developers are simply denying leaseholders the information that they, obviously, are entitled to?

I'm pleased to speak in this debate that calls to strengthen residents' rights in Wales. I'm also pleased that the building safety is a key component of the co-operation agreement between the Government and Plaid Cymru.

Following a recent meeting with concerned residents, I tabled a written question to the Minister about enacting sections 116 to 125. The reason those sections haven't been enacted for Wales is because of the late amendments of those sections to the Bill, giving insufficient time to consider the full implications of those sections on Wales—another reason, I would suggest, Minister, why we shouldn't be using the LCM process and we should have our own emergency Welsh legislation, as mentioned by Mabon ap Gwynfor, but that is another argument. You did say in your reply to me that you are considering other legal protections and other options. Could you please expand today on what you mean by that? 

I'm also pleased to see the extension of the Defective Premises Act 1972 time period, with regard to addressing redress available to leaseholders when developers no longer exist. How far are you and your officials in coming along with this, and will residents be included in any discussions over this?

While we are debating this very important issue in the Senedd, there are residents just around the corner from the Senedd, in Celestia, who are facing very expensive legal actions against large developers. What support can they receive right now from the Welsh Government? As has been highlighted, these residents have been living in a nightmare for over half a decade. What they need to know now, Minister, is: when will this nightmare come to an end? Diolch yn fawr. 

In my preparation for my remarks today, I was able to speak with a property management company that has quite a number of properties affected by cladding issues in England and in Wales. And though you might not expect this from me, I want to say that they had extremely positive feedback on the application process of the building and safety fund in Wales, and were happy that things were now progressing, and indeed progressing much faster in Wales than in England. Obviously, this is just anecdotal and just the experience of one person in one management company, who is not a leaseholder themselves. But I felt the need to highlight that someone, somewhere, does at least feel that you have done an agreeable job so far in dealing with the complexity of this issue.

However, while it is nice to receive positive feedback, I would like to reiterate, in the strongest possible terms, that there is still a long way to go, and leaseholders are still facing extraordinary circumstances with regard to some properties. As the Minister has previously recognised, unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are caught up in this cladding issue because they cannot sell their properties or remortgage them, which has meant that they are detrimentally exposed to higher interest rates, and they cannot move to larger homes to support a growing family, or move to access better employment opportunities.

Moreover, research has shown that leaseholders are now being exposed to considerably higher service costs, in part due to the increase in insurance and maintenance costs, which in some instances has increased by as much as 600 per cent. This, along with an additional and unprecedented rise in energy bills, means that owning these properties is likely to become unaffordable for many people. And I believe, Minister, that this Government should brace itself, as many leaseholders will likely face repossession as a result. Minister, we must also take into account that many people are still living in buildings that have unsafe cladding. Until these issues are rectified, residents still face the prospect of another catastrophe such as Grenfell, which we all hope and pray will never, ever happen again. Where we are today is a far cry away from when these properties were bought, in good faith, when people were expecting that they would have an affordable and safe place to live. It is disappointing that the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that nine out of 10 affected leaseholders have reported a deterioration in their mental health because of excessive worry and anxiety, with 23 per cent considering self-harm or suicide, and 32 per cent reporting an increase in their alcohol consumption.

The truth is, Minister, that while this Government is responding, and this is welcomed, time is running out for people, and the help identified is going to be, quite frankly, too late for many of them, who not only face the immediate effects of repossession but who will likely face detrimental repercussions for many years to come. Minister, there are thousands of people in Wales who are bearing the brunt of a situation that was not of their making. Therefore, I encourage this Government, with the utmost urgency, to keep the pressure on to remedy this situation as soon as possible, and agree to our motion. Thank you.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

The Minister for Climate Change, Julie James.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of building safety in Wales. As many Members have already mentioned, building safety forms part of the co-operation agreement. Today, Llywydd, the Tories want to focus on sections 116 to 125, and I'm very pleased, Llywydd, that they managed to correct their original error when they tabled the debate. We are, in fact, debating the correct sections today. So, just to be clear, sections 116 to 125 of the Building Safety Act 2022 offer leaseholders in England some protections in having to pay for or limit contributions to the remediation works being undertaken on their buildings. The sections also provide a course of action where leaseholders can take legal proceedings at their own cost against developers who are not prepared to step up to their responsibilities. 

The Tory narrative that, for Wales, we should look to England, is just tired. For something as important as the safety of our buildings, it is absolutely essential that we look at the appropriateness and the necessity of sections 116 to 125 in Wales. In making comparisons to the protections available to leaseholders in Wales, we must first understand the scale of the issue. To illustrate this, Llywydd, in England 12,500 residential buildings of 18m and over in height have been identified, compared to around 300 in Wales. The scale of developers operating in this space is also huge in comparison to Wales, with 49 developers currently negotiating formal legal documentation in England compared to 11 in Wales. On this basis, I can understand the complexity and difficulties being faced by our colleagues in England in bringing those responsible to the table. Janet was asking me who has come to the table and who hasn't; I can just recommend that she does actually read the written statements that we put out regularly in this regard.

The situation here in Wales is different. Here in Wales, we have always taken the position that leaseholders and residents in medium and high-rise buildings should not have to pay for fire safety works that are not of their making, and I am as committed to this today as I have always been. This is not just cladding in Wales; this is all of the issues that pertain to fire safety. It's a very important distinction. This is not a limitation on what payments leaseholders should pay. It is a simple premise that leaseholders should not and will not pay for fire safety works that are the responsibility of the developer. 

I'm really proud of our approach in Wales to go further to address fire safety issues, taking the needs of the whole building into account, irrespective of whether cladding is present. The work to support leaseholders in significant financial difficulties through our leaseholder support scheme recognises the needs of individual households, and in particular, Joel, I recommend that you have a look at that scheme. We are currently reviewing the eligibility criteria for the scheme, and leaseholders who find themselves in the financial difficulties you outline will be eligible to have their leasehold bought out by the Government.

I'm also proud of the approach that we've taken to working with developers. To date, this has resulted in 11 developers signing up to the Welsh Government's development pact. We are working with one more, as well. The developer's pact is a public commitment that developers will rectify fire safety issues in buildings of 11m and over—not 18m, 11m and over in height—that they have developed over the last 30 years. This provides assurance for leaseholders they will not have to pay for fire safety works they are not responsible for—

Minister, will you take an intervention on that?

Yes, of course. 

Thank you, Minister. I welcome the pact that you've signed with the various developers. I hear what you say—that there are still negotiations with one developer. As I understand it, part of that agreement was that they would have their remediation plans with you within a month of signing that document. Have you received any of those remediation plans, and if you have, have your officials advised you of the robustness of those plans?

I'm just coming on to that. So, as I was just saying, this provides assurance for leaseholders that they will not have to pay for fire safety works that they are not responsible for, and that the remediation works will be progressed.

In Wales, we've worked with developers to secure this commitment to remediate. Now, this is the bit that answers your question, Andrew. The formal legal documentation that will underpin our developers pact will provide the Welsh Government with the ability to take legal action against developers for breach of the terms of the agreement. The final version of the formal legal documentation is currently being drafted and will include a requirement for developers to provide a schedule and timetable for remediation works to take place, together with monitoring arrangements and a condition that any changes to the timetable are agreed with Welsh Government officials. I expect the formal legal documentation will be agreed with developers in the very near future, and I will, of course, keep Members updated on progress. To just translate that into lay person's speak, once we have the legal documentation in place, then the timetable will start to tick. So we're not quite there yet, but we will be very shortly.

Given that, in Wales, there are a significant number of leasehold properties that fall under the 11m or five-storey thresholds, we also need to consider whether the provisions set out in sections 116 to 125 are suitable for Wales. Practically, the process of making provision equivalent to or similar in nature to sections 116 to 125 for Wales is not straightforward. Doing so would require primary legislation, which is of course more time consuming to prepare and pass than secondary legislation, and additionally, any legislation would need to be tailored for Wales specifically, as currently, 116 to 125 are specifically tailored to the new building safety regime in England, which is not the same as the regime here in Wales. So whilst sections 116 to 125 do provide leaseholders with an option to instigate legal action against a developer who they consider is not remediating fire safety defects that they have created, this could actually make leaseholders liable for the legal costs of doing so. 

In Wales, if a leaseholder or resident is concerned that a developer is in breach of the terms of the formal legal documentation underpinning the developer's pact, there will be provision for them to contact the Government and we will, of course, be closely monitoring the agreement. The Welsh Government could then take legal action to enforce the formal legal documentation, so protecting leaseholders from the potential legal costs of undertaking the action themselves. So, just to say in really clear language, we just don't need the sections in Wales. We don't need to limit or provide for a cap on the payments made, because we are going to pay for the works ourselves or the developers are going to pay for them. So, where we have buildings that developers are connected to, they will pay for the remediation works, and where we have the so-called 'orphan' buildings—so, nobody can identify the developer or they've gone bankrupt or out of business—we will pay for it. The leaseholders will not have to pay for it. 

Welsh Conservatives are calling on the Government to work together with all political parties. I think I've set out today that we are a Government that is more than happy to do that. We welcome working together in the interests of leaseholders so, of course, Llywydd, we will work with all political parties to ensure leaseholders are protected, but these must be the right protections for leaseholders in Wales, and we believe we have those. Diolch. 

Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like thank everyone who's participated in the debate this afternoon, and, in particular, the way it set out why we are debating these issues, because of the tragedy that was Grenfell, and the innocence of people who live within many of these properties that are affected by the subsequent fall-out from Grenfell—it's a tragedy for those individuals. And Joel James touched very powerfully on the mental health issues, the abuse of alcohol and other social implications that have befallen these individuals through no fault of their own, but through the trauma of going from having what they believe was their dream home to a liability around their necks and, ultimately, something that had little or no value whatsoever, but, above all, a potential death trap if a fire ensued in any of those buildings, and, obviously, the continuing fear of what might happen.

And that's why I'm a bit mystified by the Minister's response today. Why wouldn't the Welsh Government want to use law to give rights to those individuals so that if they felt able to, under the law, they could seek redress? I do welcome the initiatives that the Minister and the Government have taken to date in working alongside colleagues across the sector to bring the developers to the table, but there are very many certain areas that do need the law to give protection to the individuals affected, such as the special-purpose vehicles that were put in place to build many of these developments but, once the developments were built, those particular companies folded and the liability almost ceased for those developers. If we were to adopt some of these measures in a Welsh Act that would come forward—

Will you take an intervention, just to be really clear? 

I'll gladly do that. 

If there's an orphan building—that's what we call them—where the developer has gone bankrupt and we cannot trace a development company with liability or responsibility for that, then that will be paid for out of the Government's fund, which is considerably more than the consequential we were given. 

That is to be welcomed, but if you talk to the residents just up the road from here, there are wider implications around the orphan buildings that the Minister talks of that the residents themselves, through the Cladiators group and other pressure groups that have emanated out of this campaign, want to see enshrined in Welsh law. I accept the point that Mabon makes that we need Welsh law; we don't just need to piggyback on the back of what has gone on in Westminster. I accept that. But we've proven here in this institution before this Parliament that where we need speedy legislation, we can do that: the Agricultural Wages (Wales) Order 2022. I can see Mick Antoniw sitting opposite me, who spoke in that particular debate and championed that particular piece of legislation. And there's also the European continuity Bill that was introduced in a timely manner.

So, whilst we might actually disagree on some of the points, I hope that we don't disagree on the fundamental principle that we should be using the powers of this Parliament to give protection, give rights to citizens of Wales who find themselves on the wrong side of this argument, this debate and need the protection of the law. And, as I said, I do welcome the measures that the Government have put in place to date, but I do find it odd that the Government aren't prepared to actually come here with a piece of legislation we can put through in a timely manner that is Welsh-specific legislation that deals with the Welsh-specific issues. I see there is a difference. Regrettably, the Welsh Government won't vote for the motion tonight, but I do hope that other Members from the opposition benches will combine to actually give approval to the measure today so that it can go forward for consideration. And I hope that Members will support the motion that's on the order paper this evening. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, and therefore we will move to voting time. And unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.