The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:00.
The meeting began at 09:00.
|
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
John Griffiths:
I welcome everyone to this meeting of the
Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. The first
item on our agenda today is introductions, apologies, substitutions
and declarations of interest. Janet Finch-Saunders has sent her
apologies for items 1 to 5 on the agenda and David Melding will be
substituting for her for those items. Janet will then attend for
items 6 and 7. Are there any declarations of interest?
No.
|
|
Ymchwiliad i Ddiogelwch Tân mewn Tyrau o
Fflatiau yng Nghymru: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 7
Inquiry into Fire Safety in High-rise Blocks in Wales: Evidence
Session 7
|
|
[2]
John Griffiths:
We’ll move on then to item 2 on our
agenda today, the committee’s inquiry into fire safety in
high-rise blocks in Wales, and this is our evidence session 7.
I’m very pleased to welcome Lesley Griffiths AM, Cabinet
Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, and Carl Sargeant AM,
Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children. Cabinet
Secretaries, would you like to introduce your officials for the
record, please?
|
|
[3]
The Cabinet Secretary for Communities
and Children (Carl Sargeant): Bore da. Good morning, John and committee. Can I ask
Emma to start, please?
|
|
[4]
Ms Williams: Emma Williams, head of housing policy.
|
|
[5]
Mr Swain: Martin Swain, deputy director for community
safety.
|
|
[6]
Mr Hemington: Neil Hemington, chief planner, including building
regulations.
|
|
[7]
John Griffiths:
Okay, thank you all for that. Perhaps I
might get us under way, then, with some initial questions. Firstly,
what challenges did the Welsh Government face in the immediate
aftermath of the fire at Grenfell Tower, particularly with regard
to information flow from the UK Government and then passing that on
and communicating that to stakeholders here in Wales?
|
|
[8]
Carl Sargeant: Thank you, Chair. It would be useful, I think, just
to point out that I’ve been taking the lead across Government
in terms of the discussions with the UK Government, and Lesley
Griffiths and I have regular updates in terms of co-ordinating that
across the team of officials as well.
|
|
[9]
Post Grenfell, which was a very tragic
event that happened, the UK Government were quite quick on
establishing a working group to look at the effects of what was
deemed to be then a risk around building, including the issue that
has been more prolific in terms of the aluminium composite material
on buildings.
|
|
[10]
Immediately, my team had direct links
into the UK Government and, to be fair, I’ve no criticism of
the UK Government in the way that they’ve handled this.
It’s been a very free-flowing discussion. At times, could
some of the discussions have been a bit more timely in terms of
announcements et cetera? Maybe. But in the spirit of action, I
think all Governments have worked particularly well in trying to
resolve some of these significant issues across the UK.
|
|
[11]
We continue with those discussions. I had
a telephone conference with Ministers across the UK only last week
and my officials continue to work with the UK Government and
advisory groups to make sure that we are ahead of any action
that’s happening from the advisory group.
|
|
[12]
John Griffiths:
So, that ongoing contact then, Cabinet
Secretary, would be at both ministerial and official
level.
|
|
[13]
Carl Sargeant: Indeed. Ministerial wise, I spoke to Alok Sharma last
week and the UK Government officials were there. The Scottish
Government were in the room also, and my officials have regular
contact and dialogue irrespective of ministerial
meetings.
|
|
[14]
John Griffiths:
Okay—
|
|
[15]
Carl Sargeant: Sorry, for clarity, I should say that it’s not
‘my’ officials but ‘our’ officials. We have
a team of people across Government that I lead on, but technically
some of the officials are in Lesley Griffiths’s
department.
|
|
[16]
John Griffiths:
Okay. So, with regard to that general
communication in the immediate aftermath of, as you say, the
terrible tragedy, and up to the current time, do you think there
are any particular lessons to be learnt? Or, as you characterise
it, has it been as smooth and efficient as it could be in the
circumstances?
|
|
[17]
Carl Sargeant: I think the framework that’s developed across
Government has been a useful one. I think it could be replicated in
such other events that may or may not occur in the future. I think
you always learn from experiences, but this one has not been a bad
one. This one has been generally pretty coherent in the
messaging. Access to information has been generally okay. I
would certainly not in this case be overtly political, but,
actually, we wouldn’t have to be in this case; it’s
worked very well.
|
|
[18]
John Griffiths: And you’ve had direct discussions with
the other devolved administrations as well, as part of the wider
collective, including the UK Government, on fire safety.
|
|
[19]
Carl Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[20]
John Griffiths: Okay. Thanks very much for that. Bethan, you
had some questions, I believe.
|
|
[21]
Bethan Jenkins:
Mae’r cwestiwn cyntaf
ynglŷn â chostau. Yn amlwg, rydym ni wedi cael
tystiolaeth yn barod, nid yn unig gan landlordiaid, ond hefyd gan y
gwasanaeth tân. Roedd pobl yn y gwasanaeth tân yn dweud
eu bod nhw’n gallu ymdopi heb unrhyw arian ychwanegol. Ond, a
ydych chi’n credu, gyda’r newidiadau sydd yn mynd i
ddod allan o’r gwaith ar lefel San Steffan ar y building
regulations, a hefyd ar yr hyn sy’n dod allan o’r
grŵp gorchwyl—a ydych chi’n credu bod angen mwy o
gyllid i landlordiaid er mwyn iddyn nhw allu ymdrin â’r
sefyllfa, neu ydych chi’n credu bod popeth yn iawn yn hynny o
beth?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: The first question is on costs. Clearly, we have had
evidence already, not only from landlords, but also from the fire
service. People in the fire service have said that they could cope
without any additional funding. But, do you believe, with the
changes arising from the Westminster work on the building
regulations, and also on what comes out of the working group, that
more funding is needed for landlords to enable them to tackle the
situation, or do you think everything is okay in that regard?
|
|
[22]
Carl Sargeant: I think the question is a little bit
premature. We don’t really know yet what the outcome of the
advice may look like. I pay tribute to my colleagues across the UK
and, indeed, the services across Wales. They’ve worked
incredibly hard to give as much public confidence as you could get
from a very trusted source, the fire service, working with
registered social landlords and local authorities, to talk with
individuals affected by ACM product. In terms of the long term,
we’ll have to wait and see what that looks like in terms of
risk and risk profile. I have had discussions with the UK
Government, saying that it is something that we should bear in mind
in terms of cost, and where that would come from. However, the
current position is that I do not intend to issue any additional
funding to the fire service, nor RSLs, or local authorities in this
space at the moment. But we are constantly reviewing that,
depending on the amount of risk that is posed.
|
|
[23]
Bethan Jenkins:
Dylwn i fod wedi ychwanegu’r
ffaith bod efallai angen cefnogaeth ychwanegol ar awdurdodau lleol.
Mi wnes i glywed gan rai gweithwyr mewn rhai adrannau mewn
awdurdodau lleol, yn yr adrannau penodedig yma, eu bod nhw’n
barod yn stryglo o ran adnoddau. Felly, mae hynny’n rhywbeth
i chi feddwl amdano hefyd.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I should have added the fact that perhaps
additional spend is needed for local authorities. I heard from some
employees in some local authority departments, in these specific
departments, that they are already struggling in terms of
resources. So, that’s something for you to consider as
well.
|
|
[24]
Ond i fynd ymlaen at rywbeth arall
wnaeth y pwyllgor glywed fel tystiolaeth, sef effaith cyfyngu
rhenti tai cymdeithasol yn unol â chyfraddau lwfans tai
lleol. Pa bryderon sydd gyda chi am hynny, a beth yw eich barn ar
hynny?
|
But to go on to
another issue that the committee heard as evidence, which is the
impact of restricting social housing rents in line with local
housing allowance rates. What concerns do you have about that, and
what’s your opinion on that?
|
|
[25]
Carl Sargeant: I think we are conscious of that, even
outside of the sphere of fire safety. The local housing allowance
is only lower than the amount given in very few places, and in that
respect, those areas aren’t affected by what we would
consider fire risk at the moment. So, I don’t think the two
run hand in hand, although it’s a very important question on
the principle of housing allowance anyway. And that’s
something I’m looking at separately from the fire issues. At
the moment, we’re not aware of a compromise between fire
safety and the amount of funding that comes to the RSLs and
individuals for housing allowance.
|
|
[26]
Bethan
Jenkins: Ocê.
Diolch.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Okay. Thank you.
|
|
[27]
John Griffiths: Cabinet Secretary, before we go on, I think
Rhianon wanted to come in, but before she does, just on the matter
of costs, Cabinet Secretary—. Perhaps I should declare an
interest here, as Newport City Homes are in a position where
they’re going to incur substantial costs in dealing with the
external cladding system and renewal of that, and, indeed,
retrofitting sprinklers. Where you know that RSLs are incurring
substantial costs, do you have any role in liaising with those RSLs
on the implications? Is it your understanding that that cost will
be effectively met by the residents?
|
|
[28]
Carl Sargeant: That is a matter for the RSL. However, I have
had discussions with Newport City Homes, as you raise those issues.
I am content with the actions that they are taking. They are being
very responsible in the way that they’ve acted within the
trigger period of understanding what the testing regime was, what
the effects of that were, and involved their residents very well.
They’ve involved their residents very well in terms of the
communication process. They took it upon themselves to decide to
install sprinklers and the removal of the cladding of the building.
At no point have they said that the financial burden should be
either one for residents or for ourselves as Government. They have
acted very responsibly in terms of dealing with the crisis point
that they had.
|
|
[29]
John Griffiths:
Could I just probe a little further in
terms of your understanding of where that cost might be met,
because if it isn’t external sources such as Welsh Government
or additional costs for residents, where might that funding come
from?
|
|
[30]
Carl Sargeant: There are several routes. That is not a matter for
me, Chair. There are potential insurance issues. There are
potential calls on their reserves to manage this. Their financial
modelling may change long term, but ultimately it is a matter for
them.
|
|
[31]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Rhianon Passmore.
|
|
[32]
Rhianon Passmore:
Thank you, Chair. In regard to the
prioritisation of what has to happen around buildings that are
slept in over a certain height—you mentioned hospitals and
student accommodation—in terms of the assessment of privately
owned tenured buildings, where are we in terms of communication
with private landlords and how is that going to be rolled out in
terms of identification of ACM in higher risk buildings that are
privately owned? Could you talk us through where we’re at
with that?
|
|
[33]
John Griffiths:
Perhaps quite briefly, Minister, because
we will be coming on to these matters further on in the
meeting.
|
|
[34]
Carl Sargeant: Okay. We have acted as we would with the public
sector. We engaged with the Welsh Local Government Association very
quickly. They are part of the fire advisory group we have, and
they’ve looked at how they can identify public buildings over
seven storeys or risk buildings that are profiled as hospitals et
cetera. And then, they have they sought to make contact with the
owners of those buildings, which has proved quite difficult, but we
are progressing that. We have identified several of
them—I’ll get the numbers in a second for you—but
we’ve identified a number of buildings with ACM. But I expect
the private sector to operate in the same way and, to be fair, they
are. We have no powers over this, but they do appear to be acting
responsibly where we have identified them.
|
|
[35]
Rhianon Passmore:
Just to follow up, Chair, if I may, in
regard to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, I know
that that’s further on in the agenda, but is there a need for
more authority over an ability to secure public safety and
privately tenured buildings?
|
|
[36]
Carl Sargeant: We will await the results of the fire advisory group
and whether that is a recommendation from them. There are already
powers for local authorities to have closure notices on buildings
to remove individuals from those properties. It’s pretty
archaic but it works. Now, I think we’ve got to think about
the prevention process here. So, that’s the last resort for
us. What are the other interim steps that make a safe building, a
safe environment for people to live in? If it’s not safe,
then people should be removed, but all of the conditions that
we’ve seen currently have been managed very effectively by
both registered social landlords and private sector buildings,
alongside emergency services making sure people are aware of the
risks that are posed by this.
|
|
[37]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Bethan.
|
|
[38]
Bethan
Jenkins: Jest yn fras, jest i fynd ymlaen at hysbysu pobl sy’n
byw mewn fflatiau am yr hyn sydd yn digwydd, fe wnes i fynd i
Newport City Homes ac roedden nhw’n cael cyfarfodydd yn aml,
ond wnes i ddim mynd i ymweld â lleoedd eraill. A allwch chi
jest esbonio a ydy pawb wedi bod yn gwneud hynny—siarad
efo’r trigolion a chael cyfarfodydd? A hefyd, y pwynt olaf yw
trafod gyda phobl sydd ag anghenion arbennig. Er enghraifft, yn
Newport City Homes roedd rhywun ar lefel uchel a oedd yn teimlo fel
nad oedden nhw’n gallu aros yna oherwydd eu sefyllfa bersonol
nhw ac yn sgil y drafodaeth i gyd ar Grenfell. So, a ydy hynny wedi
cael ei wneud mewn ffordd sensitif hefyd?
|
Bethan Jenkins: Just broadly to go on to informing people who live in
flats and what is happening, I went to Newport City Homes and they
were having regular meetings, but I didn’t visit other
places. Has everybody been informing residents and having meetings
with them? And also have they been having discussions with people
who have special needs? For example, at Newport City Homes there
was someone at a high level who felt that they couldn’t stay
there because of their personal situation and as a result of the
discussions surrounding Grenfell. Has that been done in a sensitive
way as well?
|
|
[39]
Carl Sargeant: Indeed. As you’ve visited Newport City Homes, I
visited Swansea a couple days after Grenfell and the identification
of ACM product in Swansea. I spoke to several residents in there
and it was a very mixed message. There were some that were very
relaxed about the whole situation, and it was a case of ‘we
are where we are’ and recognising the fire service had been
and had come and talked to them. But any additional support that
was needed for those units was there. And I also spoke to a lady
who felt very compromised in that situation, and she needed
support around confidence on that.
|
|
09:15
|
|
[40]
I was very impressed by the fire services and their ability to give
reassurance to the individuals who were concerned there. If I was
to go there, as I did, or you were to go there and say,
‘It’s all safe, it’s all going to be fine,’
I don’t believe that they would believe us, but when a
trusted source like the fire service does that, and they do it
well—. I think they were very effective in managing that
element of risk and, also, the nervousness of individuals as
tenants.
|
|
[41]
What we had decided was if we weren’t able to reassure
residents in that space, we would have to provide alternative
accommodation. We never got into that position.
|
|
[42]
Bethan Jenkins:
Rwyf fi’n cymryd nad chi sydd
yn logio’r cwynion neu’r consýrn. So, nid ydych
chi wedi cael unrhyw un sydd wedi bod mewn sefyllfa lle maen nhw
wedi gorfod symud neu maen nhw wedi gorfod gwneud unrhyw newidiadau
i le maen nhw’n byw yn sgil hwn. Mae hynny’n newyddion
da, felly.
|
Bethan Jenkins: I assume that you
don’t log any concerns or complaints. So, you haven’t
had anyone who’s been in a situation where they have had to
move or have had to make any changes to where they live as a result
of this. So, that’s good news then.
|
|
[43]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I’ve had letters galore from
individuals in housing situations who feel they have been affected
by Grenfell, because they live in social housing, not just in tower
blocks. But they feel that they do not have confidence in product
that’s been put on their premises. Now, we have to take a
measured response to that, again, talking to the individuals and
giving them reassurance that what we believe to be safe under
standards is safe, and until advised otherwise, those products are
deemed to be operating reasonably for those building
conditions.
|
|
[44]
I think the key here is to have conversations with the individuals,
and to make sure that the RSLs or the local authorities go and talk
to the individuals affected by this, because it was a very tragic
and very open event that happened, and that affects people
differently. I can’t have control over that, so, where
complaints or concerns come in, they have to be addressed by the
authorities, and they have been. I’ve not seen repetitive
letters coming in saying, ‘Nobody’s been to see me.
Nobody’s talked to me about these things.’
|
|
[45]
John Griffiths: Could I ask you a question about fire
sprinklers, Cabinet Secretary? We’ve heard evidence from
Newport City Homes that there is concern that the cost of
retrofitting fire sprinkler systems may be very high as a result of
supply and demand. I’m just wondering whether you, or the UK
Government to your knowledge, have had any conversations with the
fire sprinkler industry to try and overcome these problems of
availability and cost.
|
|
[46]
Carl Sargeant: I haven’t, and I think we have to be a
little bit careful in moving into this space, as well, Chair. When
I said earlier on about the conversations we had with the UK about
where we were and what was happening, et cetera, they were really
useful. I think, early on in the actions post Grenfell, there was a
pressure for authorities to take some sort of action. One of those
immediate actions was to remove ACM whatever; if you had ACM, it
was coming off. There was a period of time—a week or week and
a half—where activity and where identification in London
discovered ACM, and the product was, ‘You’ve got to
take it off.’ There was a big pressure on the market then,
one, for removal. Actually, what we do know now is if you expose
the ACM, it has potentially higher risks than leaving it on. So,
it’s got to be done properly, and what we’ve said is we
have to have a fact-driven action. That’s why the reporting
of the group is something that I’m very keen to make sure we
listen to and make a decision on.
|
|
[47]
That takes us on to the sprinklers side of this. I am a big
supporter of sprinklers, and I know the Member, alongside many
others in this Assembly, when passing Ann Jones’s
Measure—. Nobody has ever died, that I’m aware of, in a
property that has sprinklers installed. But we should be basing
that on fact about why it is the right thing to put sprinklers into
these buildings, rather than putting them in because it feels
right. And that’s difficult when there is public pressure.
So, I think what we’ve got to do, and your committee has to
do, is deal with the detail of professional advice rather than
anecdotal evidence of a Minister who may have a view. I think
it’s really important that we stick to people who know what
they’re talking about and give evidence based on professional
advice and that we act on that accordingly—sprinklers
alongside that.
|
|
[48]
Sian Gwenllian:
Jest yn dilyn o hynny, felly, nid
ydych chi wedi cychwyn y drafodaeth yna eto, o beth rydych
chi’n ei ddweud. Rydych chi’n dweud nad ydych wedi cael
unrhyw fath o sgyrsiau ynghylch gosod y systemau hyn mewn hen
adeiladau. Pryd ydych chi’n mynd i gychwyn cael y drafodaeth
yna, felly? Beth ydy’r amserlen? Yn amlwg, mae angen y
drafodaeth er mwyn cael y dystiolaeth i wybod pa ffordd i
fynd.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Just following on from that, you haven’t,
therefore, started that discussion yet, from what you’ve
said. You haven’t had any kind of discussion yet with regard
to installing these sprinkler systems in older buildings. When are
you going to start having that discussion? What’s the
timetable for it? Obviously, the discussion is needed so that we
can gather the evidence in order to know in which direction to
go.
|
|
[49]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I’ve got my fire advisory panel
set up in Wales, and there’s the UK one. Now, I do know that
the UK panel aren’t considering sprinklers; that is not part
of their policy agenda, while, in Wales, it’s very different.
I’m waiting for further advice from my fire safety panel to
see whether they consider the installation of sprinklers on older
buildings, or retrofitting sprinklers, is the right thing to
do.
|
|
[50]
Sian Gwenllian: So, what’s the timetable on that?
|
|
[51]
Carl Sargeant: In fact, I think our first report is due this
week in terms of what the local advice would be on the state of the
Welsh nation. In terms of our discussion with the UK Government,
that is ongoing continually, but I do understand that sprinklers
are not a consideration of the UK Government. I’m correct in
that, aren’t I?
|
|
[52]
Mr Swain: Yes.
|
|
[53]
Carl Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[54]
Sian Gwenllian: Yes. What I’m trying to
ascertain—. The public think that older buildings should be
retrofitted with sprinklers, don’t they? I mean, that’s
the reaction and, as you say, it may be a knee-jerk reaction, but
what we need to know, as soon as possible, is what is the evidence
for not doing that.
|
|
[55]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, and that advice will come to me.
You’re right to say—. I will defend my position in
terms of saying that I will not be bounced into making a decision
that is not based on fact.
|
|
[56]
John Griffiths:
So, what you’re saying in terms of
the cost, and what we heard in evidence from Newport City Homes
about the rapidly rising cost of fire sprinkler systems, is that
you think it’s premature to consider those issues at this
stage, given that you’re not convinced of the need for
substantial retrofitting of sprinkler systems.
|
|
[57]
Carl Sargeant: Well, it really is unfortunate isn’t it, Chair,
that, because of a significant disaster, whatever that may be,
whether that be the fire at Grenfell or flooding, et cetera, the
market reacts to that? Generally, they realise that roof tiles are
now at a premium and suddenly roof tiles are double the price.
It’s the same with the sprinkler position. That’s why,
I think for us, it’s about a measured response to: should we
or shouldn’t we make an investment in this area, or whatever
that is? The costs are between £1,000 and £1,200 per
unit, to be installed retrofitted. That’s significant if
you’ve got a high-rise block, but we have to ask the question
in the first place—. And the Measure went through the
Assembly with lots of evidence from professionals, from the fire
service et cetera, saying, ‘Where are our risk
buildings?’ Now, it may be a matter for this committee or it
may be a matter for another one, whether a review of sprinkler
systems—. Actually, it sits with Lesley Griffiths, so she may
have a view on this. But, you may want us to reopen that box and
ask whether we should make installations retrofit–style
because of these reasons. I am hoping that our team will be able to
give us some advice to say, ‘We should do that’, or,
‘We should look at that’, but what I believe we should
think about is how that advice comes forward.
|
|
[58]
John Griffiths:
And, as you say, the review is not
addressing fire sprinklers as you understand it.
|
|
[59]
Carl Sargeant: In the UK. The UK central review isn’t, because
sprinklers aren’t policy, but I will expect my fire advisory
group to give me some further advice on whether that should be
included in a Welsh context.
|
|
[60]
John Griffiths:
Okay, thank you for that. A few other
Members want to come in. Is it on these particular points? On fire
sprinklers.
|
|
[61]
Joyce Watson: Yes, it’s on this.
|
|
[62]
John Griffiths:
Yes. Joyce first, then, and then
Jenny.
|
|
[63]
Joyce Watson: Good morning, Cabinet Secretaries. Could I, just for
clarity out there, understand that, what you’re saying is
that it won’t be the cost of the sprinklers that would
prevent you from fitting them; it will be the necessity to
do so in the first place? I just wanted to get that clarity.
|
|
[64]
Carl Sargeant: Absolutely right. I am a big supporter of
sprinklers, and I think certainly our new home
provision—building regulations and the
Measure—instructs for the installation of sprinklers. The
question here is about what is the benefit of doing this on a
retrofitted building and what are the risks there. If evidence is
presented to us, we should think very carefully about should we be
installing on retrofit or risk-profile buildings—so, older
buildings over seven storeys or where students are, or whatever
that looks like. But we should base that on fact. If it’s
inquiry level or if it’s a committee report, then we should
consider that very carefully. But, at the moment, the cost is just
part of the building. There are some big industry builders who hate
the thought that we’re introducing sprinklers anyway and are
doing everything they can to circumnavigate the system. I would
personally like to close that loophole. However, and with the
greatest of respect, we have to base our interventions on advice
from fire-safety experts on what is the value of doing this.
|
|
[65]
Joyce Watson: Thank you.
|
|
[66]
Jenny Rathbone: So, just to
clarify, could you just tell us which new buildings will be
requiring free sprinklers as of today?
|
|
[67]
Carl Sargeant: Ah, Neil might be able to give us some more
detail, but—.
|
|
[68]
Mr Hemington: Okay. So, in 2014, high-risk buildings were
brought under the Measure. So, that was student halls of residence,
hotels, and those sorts of things—essentially, tall buildings
where the risk was greatest. Since 2016, the building
regulations—. So, if you submitted—. The building
regulations post 2016 have caught all residential property. The
reference that the Cabinet Secretary is making to, if you like,
some of the big housebuilders and the activity they’ve
undertaken, they actually pre-registered sites before 2016, which
meant they locked themselves into an earlier set of building
regulations. So, some of the houses now that had the building
regulations process started before 2016 are not including
sprinklers. Anything that has started the process post 2016 should.
So, that’s, essentially, what’s happened. There’s
been a transitional arrangement.
|
|
[69]
Jenny Rathbone: So, are you able to quantify the number of
dwellings yet to be built that will have got under the radar of the
pre-2016 regulations?
|
|
[70]
Mr Hemington: We had some initial information on that, but,
depending on whether or not they took the building regulations
process forward, they may have fallen out of that sector. So, we
haven’t got that exact information at the moment.
|
|
[71]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay, but, even if some of them have decided
not to go ahead, can you give us any sort of figure so we’ve
got some idea?
|
|
[72]
Mr Hemington: We would have to look into that again.
|
|
[73]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay. Perhaps you could send us a note on
that.
|
|
[74]
Mr Hemington: Yes.
|
|
[75]
Carl Sargeant: I think Neil is being very conservative in
his replies, and rightly so. My understanding is that there are
many thousands of homes that are yet to be built that have,
effectively, circumnavigated the sprinkler Measure. My personal
view is that that is inappropriate, and I have had discussions, and
we’ve had discussions, about how—if—we can close
that loophole. We will try to facilitate a more detailed number for
you, but it’s many thousands.
|
|
[76]
David Melding: Do you know how long the
pre-registered—[Inaudible.]—for the pre-2016
building regulations? How long before you have to start building?
Can you still build under those regulations?
|
|
[77]
Mr Hemington: Again, we’d have to write to you on that
point. I don’t have that in front of me at the moment.
|
|
[78]
Carl Sargeant: It’s a little bit of a minefield, this,
because pre-registration, or a trigger of a building site being
started doesn’t mean—. So, you may have a site
with—
|
|
[79]
David Melding: Just put a shovel in—
|
|
[80]
Carl Sargeant: A gate, a digger and a tonne of hardcore
constitutes a start, and you’ve still got 300 houses to
build, and it’s—
|
|
[81]
Mr Hemington: Actually, to preserve the building regulations
position, it’s actually less than that: you just have to
submit a plan with a boundary on it, and I think you have to
identify the point of connection to the sewer. So, it was quite an
easy exercise to allow that to happen.
|
|
[82]
John Griffiths: Okay. Jenny, did you want to come back on
this point?
|
|
[83]
Jenny Rathbone: Obviously, I’ve got lots of questions
following on from this, but I’m happy to come back to it a
bit later—
|
|
09:30
|
|
[84]
John Griffiths:
Okay—
|
|
[85]
Jenny Rathbone:
Or not as—
|
|
[86]
John Griffiths:
Well, if it’s specifically on this
matter, Jenny, please—
|
|
[87]
Jenny Rathbone:
Well, I think it’s relating to what
happens—. You know, they submit the regulation, but we saw
what happened in Grenfell, which was probably that the original
plans would have been hunky-dory, but then there’s a whole
series of people who got involved amending the plans, which have
obviously made it into a firetrap. And so it’s really whether
the regulations are fit for purpose to ensure that the original
plans, which obviously will have been inspected appropriately, are
then translated into what it said on the tin and how we can tie up
those ends.
|
|
[88]
Carl Sargeant: Can I just offer two thoughts there, if I may, Chair?
First of all, we cannot prejudge the Grenfell
outcome—
|
|
[89]
John Griffiths:
No.
|
|
[90]
Jenny Rathbone:
No. I’m not.
|
|
[91]
Carl Sargeant: Just so that we’re clear about that. However,
based upon building risk, I accept that there are buildings that
may or may not be compromised by actions of others post initial
build. So, I think there are issues there where we have to join up
the building regs—. And this is where the advice will come
through to us about what is it that’s missing that allows
this to happen, so we will have a better understanding about
closing some of those issues or even categorisation of work-based
risks—so, what does that mean. So, is drilling a satellite
dish into a building—does that pose a significant risk to the
compartmentalisation of a building in terms of fire risk or not?
And these are the things that I hope the inquiry will be able to
give us more details on.
|
|
[92]
The Grenfell inquiry, actually, is
separate from the building regs stuff, and both will offer
significant advice, I would expect, where we carry risk. As an
aside—and I’m sort of offering the other Minister as
well—but I’m more than happy to come; I’m sure
the other Minister will do. If you wish to do some more work on
sprinklers specifically, I’d be happy to come back to
committee, but what I don’t think—. I’m not sure
by chasing the sprinkler bit here is as helpful as your
understanding of trying to understand what happened in terms of
post Grenfell. There is a link, but I think there’s something
more we can do on sprinklers.
|
|
[93]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Thank you for that, Cabinet
Secretary, and we will be coming back to building regulations later
on during this evidence session. Rhianon, is it on these
points?
|
|
[94]
Rhianon Passmore:
Yes, it is, and it’s a general
question in regard to the terms of reference of the Grenfell
inquiry. You’ve mentioned that building regs are going to be
outside of that. In terms of the holistic and cumulative nature,
you mentioned the contractors, which is a big issue for tower
blocks in terms of not having permission to get in the building,
perhaps carrying out shoddy work. Are you convinced, and
you’ve already given some comment on this, that that is going
to be sufficient to give us the proper, due evidence that we need
to place our policy in the right area? Because it is the
accumulation of all of those issues, as has already been stated,
that created such a devastating impact.
|
|
[95]
Carl Sargeant: I think we’ve got to learn lessons from what
happened in Grenfell. I think Grenfell appears to me an extreme
case. I have not witnessed anywhere in Wales that appears to have
similar circumstances that surrounded the Grenfell estate. However,
I do believe that there is a need to consider what happened at
Grenfell and why, and are we confident enough to say that that
couldn’t happen here. I think we have to be very careful in
terms of making sure that work done to buildings and all of the
regulations—and there’s a raft of regulations around
building works and fire safety, et cetera—. Do they all join
up? I’m not convinced. The advice that we receive will be an
important piece of work to say what’s missing
here.
|
|
[96]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Thanks for that, Cabinet Secretary.
We’re in danger of straying into areas that we’re yet
to come to on our agenda and our themed approach. But we’ll
move on now to David Melding and some further questions on
the fire safety advisory group.
|
|
[97]
David Melding: Yes. Just for clarification, really, and to
know when we can expect some of the findings. So, they’re
about to report and issue some initial findings, by the sound of
it. How closely will those findings be attached to recommendations,
and will those recommendations be made public?
|
|
[98]
Carl Sargeant: The advisory group is an advisory group to
me, it’s not a public advisory group—or to us. We are
expecting that, I think, this week, in terms of our first piece of
advice. They will form part of recommendations, and we will then
consider that as an action point, depending on what the advice
comes back as. And I haven’t seen it; I don’t know what
that will look like. As to whether we continue with the advisory
group in its guise of giving further advice to us, I have a chief
fire adviser who works full time for us. This is an added string to
the bow in terms of the linking up between other agencies—so,
we’ve got the landlords association; the WLGA sit on this
board—to try to understand what the big picture looks like
here. So, advice will come to me. It’s not public advice. I
receive advice all the time. But whatever recommendations come out
of that we will seriously consider. We will give it some thought on
whether we deem it in the public interest to share that with
you.
|
|
[99]
David Melding: Presumably, the actual advisory group in its
constitution, its secretariat, and, then, the wider contextual and
policy information it gets, is provided by your officials. Is that
correct? So, there’s a lot of integration, actually,
isn’t there, between your department and the advisory
group—as one would expect, and that’s not in any way a
criticism. But that’s basically how it’s working.
|
|
[100] Carl
Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[101] David
Melding: So, I think, from the last bit of your previous
answer, then, you will be making some statement for the Assembly to
then scrutinise on how you’re going to take the advice
forward. Now, you’re probably going to get a series of
responses. So, when would it be reasonable for us to expect that
statement in terms of the fundamentals of how the Welsh Government
is going to move forward to improve fire safety?
|
|
[102] Carl
Sargeant: I’m not going to give you a date. What I will
do, and I hope that you—
|
|
[103] David
Melding: End of autumn, or are we talking spring? I
mean—
|
|
[104] Carl
Sargeant: I think we will be able to give you an initial
statement very shortly, in terms of the next steps, and that even
might be just a very broad statement, but I think what I’ve
tried to do, including over the summer, is keep Members briefed on
where we are in conjunction with what’s happened at Grenfell.
We’ve got nothing to hide here. This is in the public
interest and I, or Lesley Griffiths, will
continue to issue statements accordingly. I’m hoping that,
once we get advice from our panel, then we will issue a statement
or a letter to Members as appropriate. We will have a further
interim report from the UK Government in November. I know Lesley
Griffiths and I are meeting with—
|
|
[105] The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural
Affairs (Lesley Griffiths): Judith Hackitt.
|
|
[106] Carl
Sargeant: —Judith Hackitt shortly to have a discussion
with her around that report and, as appropriate, we will release
that information. There is no smoke and mirrors here, in terms of
what we’re trying to achieve here. It’s within the best
interests of public safety, and I hope that’s recognised by
Members in terms of our actions to date.
|
|
[107] David
Melding: Okay. Today’s the twenty-seventh isn’t it,
so there is an updated statement on the Welsh Government’s
website about the Grenfell Tower disaster, and, under
‘current position’, you say you’ve
|
|
[108] ‘been
advised that no school or further education buildings, meeting the
priority criteria, have been found to have ACM cladding. This is
also the case with residential buildings in the NHS Wales
estate.’
|
|
[109] Presumably that
advice has come from a different source than the advisory group, or
is it channelled through there?
|
|
[110] Carl
Sargeant: We have a working group across Government, looking at
all of these actions. It’s not the advisory group that that
would come from; that’s from my advisers.
|
|
[111] David
Melding: That’s from the wider—. Yes. The
qualification ‘meeting the priority criteria’—can
you just remind us what the priority criteria are?
|
|
[112] Carl
Sargeant: Emma and Martin will love that question.
|
|
[113] David
Melding: I just wonder why that’s there at all, because I
presume that all residential buildings and buildings over a certain
height are in.
|
|
[114] Ms
Williams: We’ve taken a general view of seven storeys or
above 18m, which is where the difference in building regulations
sets it, but in terms of residential hospital, school or social
care premises, we’ve taken a view of two storeys or above
where there are people sleeping. So, we’ve actually gone over
and above the building regs’ height restriction where there
are very vulnerable people.
|
|
[115] David
Melding: Right, that’s reassuring. It’s just the
word ‘priority’—that could exclude some that
would actually qualify under the statement of what needs to be
looked at, so they’re not meeting the current priority. I
think you’re more general in your answer, there, so
that’s reassuring.
|
|
[116] Mr Swain:
It’s probably worth adding that we’ve, in a sense,
mirrored what the Department for Communities and Local Government
and Cabinet Office have done here, and the reason it’s
priority is because it’s residential and where people sleep.
I think it’s fair to say that our continued dialogue with
them is ‘What next?’, because, obviously, people in
buildings below 18m, where there is residential or where people are
sleeping, have concerns. We’re starting to talk to them about
hotels but there was a sense of a need for prioritisation around
risk and the high-rise buildings. That’s why we’ve done
it.
|
|
[117] David
Melding: Back to the issue of fire sprinklers, and I agree with
your observation that we can’t conflate fire sprinklers
completely with the cladding issue, because we could have fire
sprinklers in a building and there could still be a catastrophe
that could, because of the cladding deficiency, still overtake the
building, though we understand, and obviously we await the public
inquiry—but it does seem that it was a domestic appliance
fire that caused the initial problem in Grenfell, which may well
have been dealt with if there’d been a sprinkler system. But
that, obviously, is something that will emerge from the
evidence.
|
|
[118] So, there are
several strands to all this, and I can see why you’re working
your way carefully through them, and you don’t want us just
to look at sprinklers, as if that’s going to solve
everything. But, I suppose, in terms of the public
interest—and I’d like to know whether the advisory
group has been asked specifically to respond to this—the
Government responded to a private Member’s Measure that there
should be sprinklers in residential buildings, and I think the
whole issue of fire safety was advanced. We got a lot of publicity,
there’s been a lot of attention since, and the Member
concerned, who is now, of course, our Deputy Presiding Officer, won
a top international medal for fire safety, awarded by the American
fire service. Wales was really in the lead here, but I suppose the
judgment we made is that sprinklers are, for modern fire safety,
definitely part of what we need to do, and there’s been a
reduction in fire incidents over the years, but still, to get that
even lower, sprinklers are key to the answer. So, if that’s
the case, it’s difficult, isn’t it, to say that
retrofitting of priority or vulnerable buildings cannot be, now,
public policy? I realise there are lots of issues about how you do
it, how quickly it can be done reasonably, the effect it has on
residents, the effect it has on buildings that are close to
redundancy for other issues, and you may just want to rebuild. This
couldn’t be done in three months, but it does seem to me, as
a general principle, given where we are with public policy in
Wales, that we must conclude, surely, that retrofitting is going to
be necessary.
|
|
09:45
|
|
[119] Carl
Sargeant: Well, none of the arguments you posed at the end
there about cost or difficulty or anything concern me, because if
it’s the right thing to do, then we should do that. But I
believe we should base our actions on that, and I’m
pro-sprinklers, so I accept the intervention of—. So,
sprinklers in a bad building are better than no sprinklers in a bad
building, but that’s my personal view. I think what we need
is to have advice from professionals to say, ‘This is the
reason why we should do this’ and I think—. My advisory
group isn’t looking specifically at sprinklers. They may
say—. Post Grenfell, the priority was looking at ACM product,
alongside the UK Government, to see whether we are more compromised
in Wales or less compromised in Wales. What is the state of the
nation? They may come back to me and say, however, ‘ACM and
all the other actions in a building, because as a Government you
already have a view on sprinkles, you may wish to review the
sprinkler Measure’, and I’d be happy to do that, but
it’s based upon the advice of the professionals.
|
|
[120] David
Melding: Do you think it would be in the public interest now to
widen their terms of reference so they do offer you a view and a
recommendation on retrofitting? Incidentally, I think everyone
would agree with you that cost wouldn’t be a factor, but
capacity certainly would, and that’s why it just can’t
be done within months, probably. It might take longer phasing in.
But it seems to me that they should give a view on this, because
these are closely related. They’re not the same—I
accept that the issue of the cladding seems to be the key thing.
But it’s also true that sprinklers have been referred to in
all the evidence we’ve received—in the communal areas
and then whether they should also be in these specific flats as
well.
|
|
[121] Carl
Sargeant: Of course. I think there are several strands to the
advice that we will receive. So, the Grenfell piece of information
around the public inquiry will be really important to try to
understand what happened, not only with the building but in the
lead up to that. What was the state of the building? Why was that
allowed to happen?
|
|
[122] There’s
the evidence around building regulations and fire safety, which
will come together to say what the gaps are here. We should
consider that the terms of reference of that group—. I said
to you earlier on, I’m not sure yet whether the advice
I’ll get will lead us to think that we should continue this
group on. It’s highly likely, but that might constitute some
other experts on the group in terms of—. If they say the fire
regulations and building regulations don’t really meet up
here, if we’re going to change them or review them, maybe,
because we have in Wales a Measure around sprinklers, we should
include that as well.
|
|
[123] So, as I said,
I’m very open to understating what ‘better’ looks
like. That’s not off the table for me. Indeed, I’ve
spoken to Ann Jones already—and I know Lesley Griffiths has—on her very proactive way
of ensuring as many buildings have sprinkles as possible. I love
her enthusiasm. I want to try and curb it a little bit so that we
make sure we get the advice to support that. I’m sure she
could get it to be fair.
|
|
[124] David
Melding: My final question, I suspect, will permit a much
shorter answer. Sorry, I didn’t mean that in the sense that
you—
|
|
[125] Carl
Sargeant: I know what you mean.
|
|
[126] David
Melding: Your answers have been of an appropriate length and
full. So, I’m pleased with that. I just wonder how the
advisory group is working with the UK independent expert panel. The
chair of our advisory group is on that panel, I think—
|
|
[127] Carl
Sargeant: He’s not on the panel.
|
|
[128] David
Melding: No, I’ve got it confused now. So, what’s
the link? How do they—?
|
|
[129] Carl
Sargeant: He is directly linked to the chief fire advisor of
the UK panel and his name is—Tom?
|
|
[130] Mr Swain:
I think it’s Tom.
|
|
[131] David
Melding: You’re allowed to make a mistake
anyway—
|
|
[132] Carl
Sargeant: The chief fire advisor on the UK panel and our senior
fire adviser—
|
|
[133] David
Melding: That’s different to the actual UK
Government’s independent expert panel. Do we have any Welsh
representation?
|
|
[134] Carl
Sargeant: No, we don’t in terms of direct—
|
|
[135] Mr Swain:
The current chief fire adviser for England is on the panel. The
chair of the panel at a UK level is the former chief fire adviser.
Our fire adviser has a weekly meeting, either by phone or face to
face—
|
|
[136] David
Melding: Okay, so there’s official communication.
|
|
[137] Mr Swain:
Yes.
|
|
[138] David
Melding: Should we have someone on or—?
|
|
[139] Carl
Sargeant: That is the only point that I was hoping you
wouldn’t ask me. So, our discussions with the UK Government
have been very good. When we asked for a direct representative on
the panel that was dismissed. As it stands, it has not affected the
relationship or communication. Would we have liked a direct
representative? Yes, we would. But it didn’t happen and it
has not affected the outcome.
|
|
[140] David
Melding: So, we’re in a second best, but sufficient
situation because of the official communication.
|
|
[141] Carl
Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[142] David
Melding: Okay, thanks.
|
|
[143]
John Griffiths:
Okay, we need to move on at this stage.
Gareth on the fire safety Order.
|
|
[144]
Gareth Bennett:
Thanks, Chair. Some of this might have
been touched on before, but just for clarity, the first question is
relating to the fire safety Order. Do you think that is fit for
purpose or could that be amended to make it more
effective?
|
|
[145]
Carl Sargeant: Our initial views are that there is probably
something up with the system approach, so the building regulations
and fire safety Order—I’m awaiting further advice on
what that looks like, and why, if we should, make amendments to
some parts of that. Although the issue of the fire safety Order is
a devolved—
|
|
[146]
Mr Swain: It’s currently non-devolved.
|
|
[147]
Carl Sargeant: Non-devolved.
|
|
[148]
Gareth Bennett:
Non-devolved—.
|
|
[149]
Carl Sargeant: But that’s not an excuse not to do something. I
don’t think the UK Government are either in that space of,
‘Actually we need to look at this more
carefully.’
|
|
[150]
Gareth Bennett:
So, touching on the fact that it is
non-devolved, you are in ongoing discussions with the UK Government
on the fire safety Order and the possible reform of it.
|
|
[151]
Carl Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[152]
Gareth Bennett:
Right, okay. We’ve had local
government guidance regarding fire safety in purpose-built blocks
of flats, is it your intention that the Welsh Government will be
issuing specific guidance for Wales in addition to that guidance or
instead of it?
|
|
[153]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t know the answer to the question because
I don’t know what the evidence suggests yet. If the evidence
suggests that we should, then we will, but it’s premature to
give you a solid answer, Chair.
|
|
[154]
Gareth Bennett:
Okay. The first safety Order, as it
exists currently, is enforced by fire and rescue authorities and it
only covers the common parts of high-rise blocks, so do you think
that local authorities have sufficient resources at present to make
effective use of their enforcement powers to address the hazards
within flats, for example breaches of compartmentation?
|
|
[155]
Carl Sargeant: Do I think they’ve got enough resources? Yes, I
do. Are the regulations right? I do not know, and that’s what
we’re waiting for advice on, to see whether those issues we
touched on earlier about breaches of
compartmentalisation—it’s a really hard word to
say—is something that we need to do more work on. My gut
feeling is—and I am basing it on evidence—that there is
something not quite right here, and I think we should be thinking
about how they join up better and who has the powers. As I said,
ultimately, the local authority do have a power of closure. So, we
have got a backstop position, but I think there’s some better
work we can do in between there to make sure that they match
up.
|
|
[156]
Gareth Bennett:
We talked about the resource implications
earlier on, and I suppose it’s too early to know if
there’s a possibility that local authorities are going to
need further resources, but if that is the case, are they going to
be able to get the resources they need?
|
|
[157]
Carl Sargeant: That is a very hypothetical question. I don’t
know the answer to that because I don’t know what the risk
is.
|
|
[158]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Before we move on, Cabinet
Secretary, just going back to the guidance accompanying the Order,
is it possible that you could give us some idea of when the revised
guidance will be issued and will it take account of the
developments arising from Grenfell Tower?
|
|
[159]
Carl Sargeant: Can I write to you with detail about that, Chair,
because what I don’t want to do is give you false statements?
I think it’s really important, rather than issue lots of
guidance, that we get the guidance right in accordance with what we
know, rather than, ‘We need to do this
quickly’—we’ve got to do it right.
|
|
[160]
John Griffiths:
That’s fine. We had evidence that
the witnesses believed the review was almost complete, but, no,
it’ll be fine to—
|
|
[161]
Carl Sargeant: I’d rather be late, Chair, and make sure
it’s right.
|
|
[162]
John Griffiths:
Sure. If you let us know in writing, then
that’s fine. Okay, we’ll move on to building
regulations then, and Joyce Watson.
|
|
[163]
Joyce Watson: When the Cabinet Secretary, or Secretaries, will meet
with the chair of the independent review into the building
regulations and fire safety, what do you think might be the areas
of priority that you might discuss?
|
|
[164] Lesley
Griffiths: Okay, thank you. As Carl
said in his opening remarks, Carl’s leading on this across
Government, but, obviously, building regulations sit within
my portfolio. So, my officials are part of the team of officials
that Carl referred to, and they’re offering technical
support. I think we’re now coming to the cusp of the
independent review, and they are going to start looking at building
regulations. So, Carl and I are meeting Dame Judith Hackitt on 10
October. We had hoped to have met her prior to this committee
session, but unfortunately that hasn’t happened. Colleagues
will be aware that, obviously, building regulations were devolved
to the Assembly back in 2014, so the system that enforces those
regulations is very similar to England. The only difference here in
Wales is obviously the fire sprinkler necessity. So, when we meet
her, obviously it’s an introductory meeting. I haven’t
met her before; I don’t think Carl has. So, it’s an
introductory meeting. I would be very interested in the interim
findings of the review. We are due to have an interim report of
that review in the autumn. It’s autumn now, but I think,
probably, it will be towards the end of autumn before we have the
substantive report in the spring. So, my personal view,
particularly around building regulations, would be to get those
interim findings.
|
|
[165] Joyce
Watson: Okay. So, rather than when the leaves are turning green
and yellow and orange, it looks like they’re going to be
regrowing by the time you get that report, which is spring not
autumn. But the point here, more seriously, is: how will you make
sure that the Welsh perspective will be heard through that review?
I know that most of the building regulations are now devolved, but
surely we want to be influencing what we want in the areas where we
haven’t got devolution, like the fire safety Order.
|
|
[166] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes, and that, obviously, will be part of the
conversation that Carl will have with her. I think it’s very
important that we have the communication that we have seen at an
official level. I’ve pushed for that regular contact. I
haven’t had any ministerial meetings or telephone
conversations with UK Government or Scottish Ministers, but I have
had correspondence, because as soon as the Secretary of State at
the Department for Communities and Local Government announced that
there would be a review of the building regulations, he asked if we
wanted to be included, and absolutely we did, because the systems
are so similar, apart from the fire sprinkler requirements here in
Wales. I thought it was beneficial to do that. So, it’s at
official level, and the technical support that my officials are
offering, and, as I said, I think that will now probably gear up a
bit more now that the building regulations are starting to be
looked at.
|
|
[167] Joyce
Watson: It’s one thing having the regulations, but
you’ve got to inspect, and that has to be done quite
thoroughly, frequently and in the same way, wherever that
inspection might be taking place. So, are you satisfied, Cabinet
Secretary, that the current compliance and inspection regime will
be, or is, fit for purpose now, and will be when they might have
additional burdens?
|
|
[168] Lesley
Griffiths: I think that’s a very fair question. I would
say at the current time, ‘yes’. We don’t know
what advice is going to come out of the review, so we would have to
look at that very carefully and make sure we’ve got the
capacity within our local authorities to address whatever
recommendations come out. You know, would the average officer be
able to then take forward those recommendations? So, until we see
the recommendations, I couldn’t answer that.
|
|
[169] Carl
Sargeant: Can I just add to the contribution made by
Lesley in terms of the devolved nature of building regulations and
fire safety not being devolved? I think what we’ve been very
clear about is that devolved government produces great
opportunities, but what we don’t want is to lose the
expertise of panels across the UK, which have great advice, in
terms of how they’re dealing with the issues around ACM and
associated fire risks. My view has always been clear that if the
review comes up with an action, a recommendation that makes
sense—I’m sure all of them will do—then we should
very seriously consider those actions. Despite us being a devolved
nation, we should think about them very carefully.
|
|
10:00
|
|
[170] That’s why
it’s not wise for us to do something on our own here, because
the expert knowledge is based across the UK and beyond, actually,
so we need to harness that. And that’s why there are so many
things going on. Where reviews were about to start or stop and
report, I think we have to have a pause position here because
there’s lots of activity about what we considered to be safe
six months ago that now may not be, and I don’t want to be in
that—. I want to be acting, and I know Lesley Griffiths as
Minister wants to be acting, on advice from professionals. So,
Government business carries on, but we’ve got to have our eye
on the safety of our communities.
|
|
[171]
Joyce Watson: And with having an eye on the safety of the
community, there is another aspect to this that perhaps
hasn’t come up yet, and that’s the potential licensing
of builders. Anyone could be a builder; I could be a builder in
five minutes’ time. I wouldn’t be able to build
anything, but I could say I was a builder—
|
|
[172]
Carl
Sargeant: [Inaudible.]—licence maybe.
|
|
[173]
Joyce Watson:—and that is a very serious point, because
there isn’t a licensing regime at the moment underpinning the
building industry. And if work is to be carried out, not only do we
need to ensure that we’ve got the rules that guide it, but I
think, for me, the first place is that we have the competent people
with proven competence underpinned by a system that gives that
reassurance. And that, to me, is probably one of the most critical
bits in all of this. So, having said that, what work are you doing
in that field, because if you have a very large-scale—and we
have to bring procurement in—retrofitting programme, if that
should be the case, it will be procured and probably it will be
given to somebody who can prove competence—one of the big
players, in other words—who immediately pass it down the
chain to subcontractors in Wales, particularly in Wales? So, there
are big, big questions on how that would potentially be managed,
and I just put the question out there now whether it is the case
that you’re looking at that as well.
|
|
[174]
Carl Sargeant: I would hope that all work actioned and financed by
Government is delivered by approved contractors. I hear the point,
again, by the Member about licensed builders; she’s raised
this in other forums. It is one that we should maybe consider in
the future. There is a building inspection regime about work
completed. The Member raises a valid point, but the actions of
individuals are varied and we have to consider that within the
inspection regime.
|
|
[175]
Joyce Watson: And finally, if I can, in terms of planning, I just
wanted a little bit of clarity about the start date, because I know
exactly—and I could name them, but I won’t—the
companies that have put in mass applications, and you’re
right, under current rules, that’s all they have to do. And
then there are various caveats in giving that planning permission,
as to whether they start or not, because I used to sit on the
planning committee of a local authority. Am I right in thinking
that local authorities could put in caveats when they issue their
planning guidance that they want that work started sooner rather
than later?
|
|
[176]
Mr Hemington: Chair, I’ll answer that one. There are two
different regimes at work here. As far as building regulations are
concerned, that’s separate from planning. So, you can
pre-register a site, which means submitting a plan for building
regulations purposes. As far as planning is concerned, obviously,
once you have planning consent you should start works in accordance
with the timescale that is on the consent—it could be five
year, it could be two years, it could be three
years.
|
|
[177]
Joyce Watson: Is that down to the local authority to
determine?
|
|
[178] Mr Hemington: They can shorten the period, but we do have
situations where a developer will make a start to the development,
which can be quite a small start—create an access, for
example—and that then protects the permission that
they have. So, we’re talking about two different regimes
here, but there are two different routes to protect that. The local
authority, if it wishes—although many do not do
it—could serve a completion notice to make sure the
development takes place and is completed, but I believe they have
compensation consequences to doing that sort of thing. So, the
regimes work in a slightly different way. What we’ve seen at
the moment, certainly as far as this is concerned and sprinklers
are concerned, is a lot of pre-registration of sites through the
building regulations process. They haven’t got planning
consent, or they might even not be sites allocated in development
plans.
|
|
[179] Joyce
Watson: Okay, thank you.
|
|
[180] Carl
Sargeant: We should say we have asked for legal advice on the
ability to seek to put a notice on pre-registered properties. We
are awaiting legal advice.
|
|
[181] Lesley
Griffiths: And also on converted buildings as well, because,
obviously, that would be applied to converted buildings prior to
January 2016.
|
|
[182] John
Griffiths: Okay, thanks for that. Bethan Jenkins.
|
|
[183] Bethan
Jenkins: I just wanted to ask a question based on what
you’ve said regarding devolution. I appreciate that you need
to get expertise from across the UK; I’m not disputing that.
But I’m just curious as to—. If some of the powers are
not devolved in an area where you could be making strides, are you
seeking the devolution of that power? I don’t have them in
front of me now, but you have powers over fire awareness and such,
but you don’t have a power to go further than that in some
areas. That’s a very broad analysis without having it in
front of me. So, I’m just trying to understand whether
you’re seeking that or whether you think that, based on the
expertise from the UK Government, that should stay there.
|
|
[184] Carl
Sargeant: Two very brief responses—I see the Chair
looking at me. First of all, based upon the Orders that we talked
about this morning—the fire safety Order—powers in the
Wales Act will give us power over that next year. However, there
may be other aspects of fire safety and building regulations, or
other Acts, that may give us a better outcome in terms of what fire
safety and building structure look like, and we have to consider
all of those, whether they’re devolved or not devolved. I
absolutely believe that we should open our arms to as many experts
as possible from wherever they are, giving us that advice.
|
|
[185] Lesley
Griffiths: Can I just add as well, Bethan, obviously, next
year, as Carl said, we’ll get additional powers via the Wales
Act, and that will give us the ability then to look at the Building
Act itself to see if there is anything we want to do specifically
to Wales?
|
|
[186] Bethan
Jenkins: Okay, thanks.
|
|
[187] John
Griffiths: So, at the moment, we’ve had devolution of
executive powers with regard to building regulations, but next
year, under the Wales Act, we’ll have the legislative power
as well.
|
|
[188] Lesley
Griffiths: That’s correct.
|
|
[189] John
Griffiths: Okay. Jenny, briefly, if you would, please. We need
to move on.
|
|
[190] Jenny
Rathbone: I want to come back to the private sector. I
completely understand that we should wait for the UK experts’
advice, and that’s absolutely sensible, but, in the meantime,
I would have thought one of our main objectives must be to ensure
that we are not allowing the development of future sick buildings,
as of today. So, you said earlier that the contact with the private
sector in terms of disclosing information has been good, but I put
it to you that good developers would not be slow to come forward
and advise you of their plans. My concern is that we seem to have
incomplete pictures about the numbers of large-scale private sector
developments, particularly high-rise ones. What information do you
have about the totality of developments that are about to start or
are in progress, where we may need to look again at exactly what
these plans are?
|
|
[191] Carl
Sargeant: The Member’s right to raise the issue in terms
of—. We are in a state of flux at the moment, awaiting
information that categorises risk for us. We know there have been
ACM failures, and we know that, six months ago or six-or-so months
ago, we considered those panels to be compliant with standards and
safe to put onto buildings. Evidence may suggest that isn’t
the case now. It may suggest it’s still okay with
modification. I do not know the answer to that. In terms of the
building of sick buildings, effectively, building regulations
currently allow that to happen, because it’s deemed as safe,
and I have no advice yet to indicate that that is not the case.
|
|
[192]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay. So, while we’re awaiting the
expert advice across the UK, is it not possible to tighten up the
building regulations? For example, one of the things we wrote to
you about was the fact that it is not a requirement, in large-scale
developments, for them to consult the fire and rescue authority.
Good developers, like in the Hayes—the fire officers cited
them as an example of good practice—obviously they consult
them from the very early stage of their designs. But it’s not
a requirement. And for those who really want to just get in there,
throw something up and get out—. What are the checks and
balances to ensure that they’re even building something that
they promised to do in their planning applications, and that
they’re not walking away and we’re simply left with a
massive problem?
|
|
[193]
Mr Hemington: There is a link between the building regulations and
the consultation with the fire safety authority, so they should be
doing that when the plans come in. So, when the approved plans are
submitted—
|
|
[194]
Jenny Rathbone:
But they’re not obliged
to.
|
|
[195]
Mr Hemington: Well, I’ll have to check the wording of that.
My understanding is that they should be doing that now, but
you’re telling me that they’re not.
|
|
[196]
Jenny Rathbone:
Well, that’s what the fire officers
said in their evidence—that good developers do it, but
it’s not an obligation. They can’t get in there, you
know, they’re not—
|
|
[197]
Mr Hemington: But the obligation should fall upon the building
control authority as well. So, the approved inspector or the local
authority should be notifying them that these buildings—. But
we can write to you on that.
|
|
[198]
Carl Sargeant: Was that submitted evidence to the
committee?
|
|
[199]
Jenny Rathbone:
Yes.
|
|
[200]
John Griffiths:
Jonathan, do you want to clarify our
understanding on this, from the evidence we’ve
received?
|
|
[201]
Mr Baxter: I think the issue was that there’s a statutory
duty to consult when the plans are submitted. It wasn’t quite
clear if there was further consultation as the project
progressed.
|
|
[202]
Jenny Rathbone:
But I also think that they could look at
the plans once they’ve already been submitted, but
that’s late in the day to be able to actually make
appropriate amendments. Anyway, we need to clarify that.
|
|
[203]
I want to come back, as well, to the
issue of competency and capability of local authorities, which have
been subject to austerity budgets. It’s tempting to cut the
back office, which is not as visible as the local library. Given
the complexity of the building regulations and the developments of
a large-scale building, do local authorities really have the
competency to understand what is being proposed? And when somebody
comes with a change and wanting to do this slightly differently, do
they really have the competency to know whether this is a safe or
unsafe proposal?
|
|
[204]
Lesley Griffiths:
As I said in an earlier answer to Joyce,
I think that’s a very pertinent question. It’s really
important that the officers have that capability, capacity and
skills, et cetera and that how they interpret the technical
guidance is correct. So, at the current time, are we satisfied that
that’s the case? Yes, but as you say, we know that, certainly
the planning departments in local authorities, they’ve seen
severe cutbacks, I think, because once the purse is empty, the
purse is empty, isn’t it? And it’s up to the local
authorities how they produce those cuts. So, I think, when we have
the recommendations from the review, then that is something that
we’re going to have to look at—whether our guidance has
to be different. Also, there are various ways of demonstrating
whether compliance is robust, so we need to make sure that, again,
those building control officers are interpreting it in the correct
way.
|
|
[205]
Mr Hemington: Sorry, just to add to that, we have to remember as
well that local authorities don’t have a monopoly here; there
is a system of approved inspectors as well. The private sector is
involved in this process, so it’s about ensuring that they
have the resources as well.
|
|
[206] Jenny Rathbone: Well, that’s another issue. I wanted to ask a
specific question around purpose-built student accommodation,
because there’s a huge amount of it going on in Wales
now—in Swansea and Cardiff in particular. Anxiety is
expressed about—. We know that they’re subject to
lesser considerations than ordinary residential dwellings.
For example, the need for natural light to come into the
bedroom—there seems to be not a requirement. I wanted to know
in what respect those lesser regulations impact on the safety of
the fire and the quality of the building materials.
|
|
10:15
|
|
[207] Carl
Sargeant: As building regulations are set out, we do not
believe that there are any buildings being built dangerously. You
have a strong opinion, as many do, about the well-being of
individuals in properties, and about natural light et cetera, but
we don’t believe that there are any buildings being built
under current legislation that are unsafe. Until we have a view
from the advisory group to say otherwise, then the building
regulations stand.
|
|
[208] Jenny
Rathbone: So, as far as you’re concerned, PBSAs are
subject to the same construction and fire regulations as any other
building. It’s merely that the design standards are
lower.
|
|
[209] Carl
Sargeant: That’s correct.
|
|
[210] Mr
Hemington: Obviously, they’ve been subject to the
sprinkler requirements since 2014, for example. Halls of residence
were brought into that in 2014.
|
|
[211] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. Thank you.
|
|
[212] John
Griffiths: Okay. Rhianon, is it on this point?
|
|
[213] Rhianon
Passmore: Yes, it is. In regard to the Higher Education Funding
Council for Wales and their calls to privately-owned student
accommodation, I suppose I’m concerned and need reassurance
of what we don’t know, or what we know we don’t know.
So, in terms of any unaudited or unevaluated private sector
accommodation out there, the risk of harm is probably just as great
as if it’s social housing. I know that there’s less of
a mandate. So, my question, really, is: what obligation can you
place upon—whether it’s hotels or, in HEFCW’s
case, it’s slightly different because of public
funding—to be able to audit and evaluate what is out there in
terms of cladding, in particular, but also in terms of building
regs?
|
|
[214] Carl
Sargeant: To be fair, we’ve had a really good response
from certainly all the public sector and a lot of the private
sector. There are still some unknowns, but we’ve based this
on risk profiling—so, ‘Where is our major risk
here?’ We started with seven plus storeys, then we moved into
hospitals and other accommodation—sleeping accommodation and
cooking et cetera. So, student accommodation is included in that.
The local knowledge of both the fire service and local authorities
is pretty impressive in terms of understanding what their local
base is. So, when I talked to the fire chiefs, they were doing
local assessments from local stations about what they deemed to be
their risk buildings. That work is still ongoing. As I said,
we’re moving into the private sector and advice coming from
the advisory group about hotels and other buildings that we should
be looking at as well in terms of their different height profiles
as well. I’ll wait for further advice, but I think the early
indications of just discussions about the ownership of buildings
and the availability to contact the owner of a building is quite
challenging—and where that is held. So, we are working with
the Land Registry, but some of the owners don’t appear to be
the owners, or otherwise. So, it’s quite a challenging
process. Early on in our findings I would think we need to think
about some sort of registry of risk as well, so that we know that
there is a contact point that we can access very quickly in the
need of that event. That is not complete at this stage.
|
|
[215] Rhianon
Passmore: And do we have any timescales attached to that?
|
|
[216] Carl
Sargeant: I’ll await advice on that. I think it’s
really important that we understand what it is we need to do,
rather than try and create something that won’t work.
|
|
[217] Rhianon
Passmore: And in regard to Jenny’s point in regard to
HEFCW, their contact and their indirect responsibility around
student accommodation that’s privately owned, what handle
have you got on that in terms of an audit of
what’s—?
|
|
[218] Carl
Sargeant: Emma might be able to give you more details on
that.
|
|
[219] Ms
Williams: Anything that is owned and directly managed by the
universities has already been assessed, and there is no ACM at
present. We’ve been adding to the information that we have
across the whole private sector estate, from local authorities,
from fire and rescue services and from GSI data. We’ve added
to that, in relation to student accommodation, information that
HEFCW have been able to provide. So, we’re, if you like,
triangulating all four lists to make sure we have every property.
We’re then using the Land Registry to identify owners and
working through that to ask exactly the same questions as
we’ve asked of social landlords and of other residential
landlords as well. That information is coming in. There is some of
it still outstanding. Were about halfway through in terms of the
overall private sector in terms of establishing exactly
what’s out there and pursuing on a regular basis everybody
that we haven’t yet heard from.
|
|
[220] Rhianon
Passmore: And those that you’re not going to hear
from—what authority and power have you got to make them
comply with what’s not there?
|
|
[221] Ms
Williams: In relation to student residential tower blocks, the
exact same duties apply there. So, local authorities, under the
Housing Act 2004, have duties and powers if they assess that there
is a category 1 risk in particular, and we are working very closely
with the relevant local authorities.
|
|
[222] Carl
Sargeant: I just think we have to be very focused on what
we’re doing here at the moment. Grenfell was about a
high-rise block that was of significant risk. We have prioritised
in that space, so we’ve moved from high-rise, high-risk
buildings and we are working through a process now to other aspects
of buildings that, actually, are not directly linked to Grenfell,
but may have ACM product or otherwise. We’re taking a
measured response about that. This is a huge task, and we have to
be thorough. The bit about the people that we can’t reach
does concern me, but we are trying to find a way through that
system.
|
|
[223]
Jenny Rathbone:
What—
|
|
[224]
John Griffiths:
Jenny, we have to come through the chair
when we’re asking questions, and Bethan Jenkins has
indicated. Bethan.
|
|
[225]
Bethan Jenkins:
It won’t be very long. I just
wanted to ask—I’ve had concerns from people in Prospect
Place and flats in Cardiff Bay about what’s happening there.
Some of them have got their own residents’ associations and
meetings, and they’re looking for an update. So, I just
wondered how you’re involving people in the private sector
who may not be under the realm of the social landlord giving
constant advice. It will be different, won’t it? So, I just
wanted a brief answer in relation to that. Thanks.
|
|
[226]
Carl Sargeant: I’ll be very brief, and then Emma will be as
brief as. We are engaged with a lot of those private developers,
and that’s why people in those areas you talk about are now
under notice of that. Information is still expected to flow in
exactly the same way in the public sector and the private sector,
and we are in communication with local authorities and landlords,
owners, saying exactly that. So, I expect the fire service to be
involved, as they were in Newport, as they would
be—
|
|
[227] Bethan Jenkins: Do you know what
they’re doing, though? Sorry to intervene. Do you know what
they’re doing exactly?
|
|
[228]
Carl Sargeant: Emma might be able to give you some more
detail.
|
|
[229]
Ms Williams: In direct relation to Prospect Place, we actually met
with the managing agents yesterday for an update. We have the same
expectations, as the Cabinet Secretary says, in terms of them
looking at and reviewing the advice issued by the Department for
Communities and Local Government in terms of mitigating factors,
fire wardens and things like that. We know that, in relation to
Prospect Place, they have put in place a number of measures in line
with those recommendations and they have consulted the fire and
rescue service, who’ve been made aware of any failure results
that have come through the BRE testing regime. So, there is an
automatic link up with fire and rescue services and we are
monitoring the actions that are put in place and will monitor the
long-term remediation of those ACM products where
necessary.
|
|
[230]
Bethan Jenkins:
And the same would be true of other
flats? I’ve heard a few other ones as well that may be of
concern. So, the same is true of them?
|
|
[231]
Ms Williams: Yes. Exactly the same approach has been
taken.
|
|
[232]
Carl Sargeant: What we’ve also seen is that, where ACM product
is not in place, responsible landlords are writing to tenants as
well saying, ‘Your building is not included in this risk
profile.’ I think that’s actually quite reassuring for
residents as well.
|
|
[233]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Jenny.
|
|
[234]
Jenny Rathbone:
What proportion or what number of these
high-rise building developers have you not heard from?
|
|
[235]
Carl Sargeant: I can’t really answer that, because we
don’t know which ones we haven’t
contacted—
|
|
[236]
Jenny Rathbone:
Well, but a high-rise building
is—
|
|
[237]
Carl Sargeant: There are a few that we have contacted that we
haven’t had responses from, and Emma has got those
numbers.
|
|
[238]
Ms Williams: We have 79 in-scope buildings in the private sector
at the moment, of which 48 we have made direct contact with and had
some communication with. The balance we are pursuing—to
identify the correct person and make sure that we get a
response. It might be worth just adding at that point that
we’ve been very grateful to, in particular, the WLGA, but
also to local government, who have actually made efforts to do a
very quick visual check to make sure that, actually, in pursuing
people that we haven’t heard from we can pursue those where a
visual check of the building indicates there may be a greater need
for engagement.
|
|
[239] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. But there are 31 high-rise buildings where you
haven’t actually heard—
|
|
[240] Ms
Williams: Where we have not had positive communication yet.
|
|
[241] Carl
Sargeant: But none of them mean that they have ACM product on,
so—
|
|
[242] Jenny
Rathbone: No, absolutely not. But concerns may be hidden
behind.
|
|
[243] Carl
Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[244] Ms
Williams: It is a challenge, and, on occasion, it’s a
case of the Land Registry records identifying a freeholder, but
actually the agent or the leaseholder on a long-term lease who has
direct control over that building is somewhere further down the
chain, and it’s working through that chain to identify the
correct person to be able to provide the information we need.
|
|
[245] Sian
Gwenllian: And, of those 31, how many would you deem to be
high-risk? How many of those—?
|
|
[246] Ms
Williams: We have none on that list that on visual
inspection—and it is just a visual inspection; I would not
want to take that as being good enough evidence that we don’t
need to pursue a direct communication from the responsible person
for each of those buildings—. None of them are on our
high-risk list.
|
|
[247] Sian
Gwenllian: And, if you don’t get a response from them,
what course of action is open to you?
|
|
[248] Ms
Williams: The duties and the powers sit with local authorities.
So, in the ultimate case of not being able to make contact, then it
would fall to the local authority and we would work with the local
authorities to use their powers to force a response and any
necessary action.
|
|
[249] John
Griffiths: Okay. Could I just move on with a few more questions
around the private sector? With regard to those buildings that you
have identified, what information have you provided to the owners
or the managing agents, particularly in terms of cladding issues,
and the steps that they should be taking?
|
|
[250] Carl
Sargeant: Exactly the same as we did with the public sector; we
don’t see any differentiation between the two sectors.
|
|
[251] John
Griffiths: Okay. And in terms of discussions with local
authorities and the fire and rescue services regarding their roles
in particular with regard to the private sector and addressing
fire-risk issues, what discussions have you had?
|
|
[252] Carl
Sargeant: It is a complete process that we have replicated
through the whole sector. As I said earlier, we don’t see any
differentiation between the two other than identifying the body
that owns the building, which is more problematic in some areas.
And, as I said to Rhianon before, we’re looking—.
That’s the early indication that something needs to be
considered about registration and risk. So, we operate with the
same principle as the fire service in that—
|
|
[253] John
Griffiths: But have you felt that there’s a need to point
fire and rescue services or local authorities in the direction of
some of the private sector risks, given the concentrations?
|
|
[254] Carl
Sargeant: Early on, Chair, when we were even going through the
process of trying to identify these buildings and how we would do
this, local government proactively sent officers walking around
streets to identify buildings that they thought were possibly at
risk—seven storey and above are pretty obvious, but, even
ones that weren’t, looking at what these buildings looked
like and even thinking, ‘If it’s cladded, is there a
risk there?’ So they’ve been extremely impressive, the
way they’ve operated.
|
|
[255] John
Griffiths: So, would you say to residents of high-rise blocks,
then, that they should be confident that the owners, the managing
agents, are taking necessary steps, are properly informed? Could
you provide that reassurance to them?
|
|
[256] Carl
Sargeant: Well, all of the ones that we’ve had contact
with, that are engaged with us, I’m confident that they are
engaging their residents appropriately, as we would expect the
public sector bodies to do as well. The risk that we’ve
identified, as alluded to by Emma, is that there is still some
buildings we haven’t yet established ownership to move to
that next stage. But we will pursue that with vigour.
|
|
[257] John
Griffiths: Okay. David.
|
|
[258] David
Melding: On the cladding system, I notice that Glasgow City
Council has also tested the robustness of these systems in strong
wind, and some have failed. There are two issues here. If cladding
detaches, then that is obviously a physical threat to anyone on the
ground. But, of course, if it remains in place, the integrity could
be weakened, and then its vulnerability to fire, or at least its
ability to insulate if there is an incident. Are you going to look
at that evidence?
|
|
10:30
|
|
[259] Carl
Sargeant: We are aware of that. We don’t believe we are
exposed to that risk here in Wales.
|
|
[260] David
Melding: Okay.
|
|
[261]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretaries
and their officials very much for coming along to give evidence to
committee today on these very important and serious matters? You
will be sent a transcript of your evidence to check for factual
accuracy. Thank you very much for coming along today.
|
|
[262]
Carl Sargeant: Thank you, all.
|
|
10:30
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[263]
John Griffiths:
The next item on our agenda today, item
3, is papers to note. Papers 2 to 5 relate to Communities First,
and we will have a draft full report to consider next week. Papers
7 to 9, relating to the legislative consent motion on the Financial
Guidance and Claims Bill, we will consider in private session later
today. Are there any issues you’d like to raise or are you
happy to note those papers and the others? Happy to note. Okay.
Thank you very much for that.
|
|
10:31
|
