The Conservative Government, and the coalition Government before it, has consistently emphasised that we need to build more houses. We are committed to building—the UK Government, that is, for England—400,000 more affordable houses, which is why I think the Welsh Government finally came forward with their target. Anyway, I just do believe we need more house building, and it’s perhaps for another time to dissect the record of another Government, but here the Government’s record is a poor one.

I’d also say, just in passing, that house repair is often overlooked as a sector. Encouraging more effective policies there and repairing many of the 23,000 empty properties in Wales—that’s over three years-worth of current house building, on the trends we’re on at the moment. A vast number of homes are left empty, many of them because they’re not fit for habitation.

I want to turn now to the actual house building figures, because I think this is an important area that requires detailed scrutiny. In September 2015, the Welsh Government sponsored a report by the late Alan Holmans, and it stated, and I quote, that,

‘if future need and demand for housing in Wales is to be met, there needs to be a return to rates of house building not seen for almost 20 years, and an increase in the rate of growth of affordable housing’.

I commend the Government for commissioning this report. It is an excellent study, and I do urge Members to get a copy from the library and to read it thoroughly.

This would mean, the report stated, an increase from 8,700 new homes a year to 12,000 new homes a year. I don’t criticise the Government if it wants to review the target, but the 8,700 homes target was set 10 years ago or so. It may have been done with due diligence then, but we now know there is a higher need and that we must meet it. So, to change the target wouldn’t be something that I would condemn—I would welcome it if you now accepted a target nearer 12,000, or even more.

We know that, recently, the Welsh Government have committed to an additional—that’s their word—20,000 affordable homes by 2021. However, the First Minister later said in an answer to me that this would leave the annual house building target unchanged at 8,700 homes a year. I’m still mystified by how those two statements run in parallel, as they seem to flatly contradict each other.

Having examined the data, I think that what has actually happened is this: the previous target for affordable homes in the social sector was 3,500. This has now been increased to 4,000 so that we get 20,000 over five years, or an additional 2,500 affordable homes by 2021, not the 20,000 additional homes claimed by the Welsh Government. The figures have been inflated. This implies that the annual house building target has now been increased to 9,200. I welcome any clarification the Minister can make here, but I think that that has to be the logical inference that one must draw. This figure is more than the First Minister thought, but it’s a lot less than the 12,000 needed in Professor Holmans’s projection. Others have argued that the target of 12,000 itself should be exceeded because we need to meet pent-up demand in the system. The Federation of Master Builders has called for a target of 14,000, and that’s something that we endorse as the level that we need to get to by 2020.

The truth is that, however we look at it, we need to build more homes. We can help that process by streamlining the planning system and making it more user-friendly. Now, I think in England they are making great advances here, whereas we are seeing a rather slow approach here to streamlining the system. We need to release more land for building, including an audit, I would say, of land in public possession. And we need to use right-to-buy receipts to provide new social housing. I would say that that was one of the weaknesses at times of the previous policy—I’m quite prepared to concede that. We need to use those receipts for more housing, such is the need for housing. And, in that case, to reuse it for social housing.

Can I finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, refer to the amendments, all made by Plaid Cymru? We reject amendment 1, as it deletes most of our motion. I’m sure that’s not a great surprise to you. We accept amendment 2 and, indeed, its contents I warmly endorse, and that’s why I am so proud to commend the UK Government in strengthening the economy and ensuring that that provides a basis for the sound expansion of the housing sector. We accept amendment 3. There’s no hierarchy here; for many people, social housing is the best option. I’ll simply state that and move on. And we accept amendment 4. This probably only needs a technical solution, but it may need a legislative one to meet the counting anomalies that the Office for National Statistics now seem to have left us with, but we do need to move quickly to clarify the situation. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.