The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt, and amendments 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate, and I call on David Melding to move the motion.

Motion NDM6322 Paul Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the acute shortage of homes available to younger people and families to purchase or rent at prices near the historical trend.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to base its calculation of housing need on the alternative projection contained in the Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales.

3. Further calls on the Welsh Government to:

a) publish a strategy to secure more land, including brownfield sites, to be made available for home building;

b) deliver greater investment in vocational skills for the construction sector and in the development of modern apprenticeships; and

c) examine options for family living in higher density urban settings, following best practice in many European cities.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to move this motion in the name of Paul Davies and look at the housing crisis that currently exists in Wales. Successive Welsh Governments have failed to tackle the housing needs that have been quite apparent now for a generation or more. An increasing requirement for social housing, underinvestment since devolution, and the post-2008 economic shock, and just a sheer lack of ambition amongst the Welsh Government, have all led to an overall reduction in house building compared to what we need to do. Instead of addressing housing needs though a whole-market solution based on home ownership and boosting house-building rates for private and social renting, the Welsh Government has decided to chase the mirage of abolishing the right to buy, as if that’s going to be a key part of addressing our housing need, or set targets that, on the face of it, may look encouraging, but when you really dig into the detail are far less ambitious. I refer to the target of 20,000 more affordable homes to be built in the course of this Assembly term, which is just 2,500 more than previous plans. The focus should be exclusively on house building. To quote the Bevan Foundation, not enough new homes are being built to meet projected needs. That simply is the situation we are currently in. In fact, the Welsh Government does not even achieve its own inadequate targets. In 2015-16 just 6,900 homes were built, well short of the Welsh Government’s target of 8,700. In fact, the last time the Welsh Government achieved its own target was in 2007-08, nearly 10 years ago.

If I can talk about the general shortage of homes, I think we’ve had a problem since at least 2004, when successive Welsh Governments—and it’s not just been exclusively Labour-led; Plaid have been in Government as well—have been warned of the impending housing need but have not taken the necessary steps to build more homes. Those on waiting lists in Wales have been estimated at 90,000. That’s the same figure today as was reported in 2011—no progress. Furthermore, it has been estimated by Community Housing Cymru that 8,000 families in Wales have been on an affordable housing waiting list since before the 2011 elections, and a further 2,000 have been on the waiting list since before the 2007 elections. By comparison, English councils have significantly reduced the number of households on their waiting lists: the figure’s fallen by 36 per cent between 2012 and 2016. In the private sector, homeownership is, effectively, beyond many couples even on reasonably good incomes unless they have access to other resources. The average house price in Wales is now 5.8 times the average Welsh salary because—in part, at least—we simply do not build enough homes, and prices rise exorbitantly.

Joyce Watson took the Chair.

I want to talk about a more rational estimate of housing need. And here, I do, at least, commend the Welsh Government for commissioning an effective report that really looked at this, and I refer to the ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’, which was authored by the late Professor Holmans. That report estimated that Wales needs up to 240,000 new housing units between 2011 and 2031, or 12,000 new units annually. That 12,000 figure is nearly double the number we delivered in 2015-16. So, we’re barely constructing 50 per cent of the new homes that we really need to see if we are going to improve our housing position. But this—what is known as the alternative projection—has been rejected by the Welsh Government. So, they commissioned an alternative projection and they have rejected it. I do think we need to know why that is the case. So, we’re in a situation that, by 2031, even if the Welsh Government succeeds in meeting its own targets—and I’ve indicated that it’s 10 years ago since it met one of its own, or nearly 10 years ago since it met its own target—there will be a shortfall of some 66,000 homes in Wales. I do think this is shocking. Previous generations would be absolutely amazed by this complacency and failure. After the first world war, after the second world war, in the great reforming Labour Government, health and housing were seen as the central social objectives. I think it’s time for us now to state the alternative projection has to be our basis for calculating housing need.

Of course, more houses need more land. It is important, I think, that we identify and make available land for development. The UK Government has pledged to introduce brownfield registers as part of their own housing strategy. Local authorities in England will have to produce and maintain publicly available registers of brownfield sites, and these will be made available to house builders who are seeking to identify suitable sites for new homes. The UK Government has backed this policy up by promising significant funding for brownfield development, because, obviously, the sites very often have to be thoroughly cleaned. By comparison, the Welsh Government has taken a very weak stance on this aspect of housing policy. Its guidance merely says that brownfield sites should, wherever possible, be used in preference. Well, I agree with that, but it’s giving no encouragement for the identification of suitable sites or providing the resources to clean the land. As Edwina Hart confirmed in the fourth Assembly, no money was made available to councils for this purpose by the Welsh Government. It’s just astonishing. As the Residential Landlords Association has stated, the selling of derelict land has multiple positive effects in increasing the potential for homeownership, both social and private, increasing revenue for local authorities through council tax, and leading to many more opportunities for supporting small-scale local businesses.

On that point, I do want to remind people of how economically vital house building is. We’ve seen the decline of the SME sector in this area, and that’s been a real problem. If you look at the previous decades when there was a lot of house building—the 1930s and 1950s in particular, and 1970s as well—the SME sector was really, really key to that success. We’ve pretty much lost that in Wales, and it has to be said that’s happened in other parts of the UK—it’s not exclusively a Welsh problem—but that part of the sector needs to be brought back in. It’s an excellent multiplier and would increase enterprise generated within Wales. For that, we need to increase the number of potential employees trained with the appropriate vocational skills in construction, and, again, this needs key partnership with further education and a better vocational offer in general to those 14 or 18-year-olds in particular that are perhaps looking in this area for future employment. It is very, very important that we do that as quickly as possible.

One of the additional things that I want to bring to this debate is that we need to think more creatively as well. In the design of the urban environment, I think we need a bit of a revolution in making them user-friendly places and seeing pedestrians and cyclists being much more protected, and also the recreational opportunities for people in urban spaces. But I do think we need higher density housing as an option, because providing family units is going to be a real challenge if the old model of more suburbs of semi-detached houses and gardens is going to be the way forward. On the continent, high-density housing does not mean high-rise buildings. There are many good examples now of high-density, attractive family accommodation. For instance, in Amsterdam, there is the Borneo Sporenburg development in a docklands, which looks at three-storey patio houses, which are designed in particular to be attractive spaces for young families and provide general space for occupants outside as well, with many shared facilities. I think that would really be effective. We need really good play facilities and recreation facilities, and I referred the Minister to the work of the London Assembly’s planning committee in this area, and there are many other examples of family-friendly, high-density housing that could be very, very attractive as part of the solution.

Can I just say, Chair, in conclusion that we need new ambition? Housing is a basic need, and it’s vital for our health, and the development rights of children in particular, in appropriate family housing. By increasing vocational skills in the construction sector rapidly, we can create the conditions for a major expansion in house building. We should be aiming for a house building rate of at least 12,000 new units a year, and, in some years, when capacity allows, that target should be 15,000 houses to make up for the wasted years. Our aim should be simple and ambitious: homes for all.

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises that the Welsh Government is committed to meeting the varied housing needs of the people of Wales, working in partnership with private builders, the private rented sector, councils and housing associations.

2. Welcomes the Welsh Government’s commitments to:

a) build a further 20,000 affordable homes by 2021, including 6,000 through Help to Buy—Wales and 1,000 through its new Rent to Own scheme;

b) work with developers to encourage and facilitate their wider work to build market homes and unlock the potential of SMEs to build homes and deliver skilled jobs throughout Wales;

c) protect the existing social housing stock and encourage investment by housing associations and councils in the provision of new homes by abolishing the Right to Buy;

d) invest in the development of innovative approaches to housing construction to meet challenges including changing demographic patterns and the need for energy efficient homes;

e) continue to bring empty homes back into use and include the provision of housing in its regeneration schemes;

f) make more land, including publicly owned land, available for housing developments;

g) continue raising standards in the private rented sector and act on letting agents’ fees to tenants; and

h) build on the success of its early intervention approach to homelessness by working with partners to tackle the problems of rough sleepers.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new points after point 1 and renumber accordingly:

Notes that letting fees act as a barrier for low income households to move homes within the private rented sector, and that this can drive the quality of homes down as it removes the ability of households to leave unsuitable accommodation.

Calls on the Welsh Government to ban letting agent fees.

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Insert as new sub-point at end of point 3:

examine ways in which the planning system can be further used to prioritise building homes for first time buyers and families, and avoid new developments becoming disproportionately dominated by buy to let ownership and second home ownership.’

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new points at end of motion:

Notes that new housing developments, to be sustainable, requires investment in transport infrastructure (including investment in public transport and active travel), and investment in public services and community facilities to serve the additional population.

Regrets that austerity has meant that investments in public services and community facilities are not possible, and believes that some proposals for housing development may be unsustainable as a result.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 moved.

Thank you very much, deputy Deputy Llywydd. I move the amendments, as you noted. We have tabled three amendments to today’s motion, which reflect some elements of the discussion on housing that merit greater scrutiny. The arguments over house prices and the need to assist first-time buyers are often aired. It’s a combination of low wages and uncertain employment, and, therefore, very often, solutions for London aren’t relevant to Wales.

Our first amendment reflects the reality that a number of people in the private rented sector are likely to remain in that sector for a number of years. Therefore, we should aim at improving housing standards in this sector and making them more affordable. It’s clear that letting agency fees are an obstacle for low-income families to move house within the private rented sector. If you are facing paying a fee of hundreds of pounds in order to move, then you are more likely to remain where you are, in inadequate, unsuitable, poor housing. We, as a party, have tabled amendments to previous legislation to abolish these letting agency fees, but things are moving very slowly, and we call on the Welsh Government to abolish these letting fees.

Our second amendment directs us to look at what happens to new homes when they are built. The trend of building new houses everywhere in order to have affordable housing isn’t working, obviously. What is the point of building 20,000 new homes if the vast majority are purchased by buy-to-let investors? We have to look at alternative solutions. Historically, buy-to-let investors have faced fewer barriers than young families who are first-time buyers. That is why we have ‘generation rent’.

We welcome some recent changes to taxation law and further regulation in the sector, but we must go further. Our amendment calls upon the Welsh Government to study ways in which the planning system can be further used to prioritise the building of homes for those who are first-time buyers and families, and to prevent new developments from being dominated excessively by buy-to-let and second-home ownership.

So, to our final amendment. We note that local infrastructure is required to support the building of new homes. It is pointless to build houses that ostensibly look affordable, but without the public transport, active travel and other public series being available locally. Our amendment regrets the fact that austerity has often meant that investment in public services and community facilities hasn’t been possible. In fact, all of these services are contracting and are under threat everywhere. Some proposals for housing development can be ostensibly affordable, but may be unsustainable as a result of economic austerity and hardship.

There has also been a question mark recently over the quality of new homes that are being built, with a report in Westminster last year outlining many problems with the quality of even brand-new houses. So, to conclude, we cannot resolve our housing problems by building everywhere in a climate of cuts and austerity, while the basic challenges of low salaries, uncertain employment and social injustice prevail. Thank you.

I fought an election last year in which my Plaid opponent campaigned on one simple message, which was: Labour wants to build houses on your greenfields. That I won this election demonstrates that people saw through this rather dishonest strategy. [Interruption.] Indeed, I’d say to Nick Ramsay that I’m told the Conservatives, locally, are also given to such tactics on occasion as well, in spite of their motion today.

There is, however, a clear set of problems with planning policy in the Caerphilly borough area. As a councillor, I voted against the proposed Caerphilly local development plan, which was designed to offer a specific area of land for housing on limited greenfield sites in the south of my constituency in order to meet housing demand to protect other green areas. The compromise approach to local development planning is an approach on which not everyone agrees and in which no-one believes, and it demonstrates the flaws of the LDP system and why it will not, ultimately, deliver the houses we need in the areas we need them.

In my view, local development plans should act as a market intervention tool. The current emphasis in development plans on only allocating land in areas that are viable—in other words, profitable—does not allow LDPs to act as that policy intervention tool and will not stimulate the economy in weaker market areas. Indeed, it could be argued that the current market-led strategy effectively speeds up the decline of more deprived areas in the northern Valleys, by actively diverting any growth to stronger market areas such as the Caerphilly basin, which is gridlocked due to transport issues with people trying to get into Cardiff. Further, it undermines the local development plan system as plans can only allocate land in viable market areas, and thus cannot act as a clear policy intervention in those areas where the market is failing. If an LDP is intervening in the market as intended, why go through the time and expense of preparing one at all?

Where the market determines the location of new housing developments, then it will generally not invest in weak housing market areas like the northern Valleys. These weaker housing market areas tend to correlate with areas of deprivation, which are in need of regeneration, and/or areas where the housing stock is in need of diversification. From the Welsh Government’s perspective, a market-led strategy is likely to deliver market housing in areas of high demand, like the Caerphilly basin, which also facilitate higher levels of affordable homes in those areas, and, perhaps from David Melding’s point of view, target met. But in some cases, this is too simplistic a view that seems purely to be based on the number of houses that need to be built and focuses too much on where there is already existing demand. From Caerphilly County Borough Council’s perspective, a market-led strategy places undue pressure on the south of my constituency. It does nothing to aid the regeneration of deprived areas in the northern Valleys, and it does not facilitate development in weaker market areas where viability and profitability is challenging. We therefore need a planning policy that stimulates demands in areas of challenging viability, and to make sure that the infrastructure and jobs are there to make these people want to live in the areas of the northern Valleys. Therefore, it’s not just about existing demand.

With the Valleys taskforce and the forthcoming economic strategy, the Welsh Government has recognised this, but our approach to planning lags behind these excellent economic policy developments. Our planning policy should link directly to the Welsh Government’s forthcoming regional approach to economic strategy and to regional growth deals. The Government has introduced, in the previous Assembly, regional, or what they called ‘strategic development’ plans, which can serve exactly that purpose, yet they are yet to be activated. I see the city deal as an opportunity to activate strategic development plans.

Caerphilly county borough has the second highest out-migration level in Wales, with over 15,000 net outbound commutes by car each day. The majority of these commutes are south to Cardiff and Newport, and anyone who travels here from Caerphilly in the morning, as I do, will know that if you travel by car, then you have to, really, leave the house before 7 o’clock to get here at a reasonable time without spending an hour, at least, on the road. This trend will almost certainly increase over time as Cardiff is seeking to create many new jobs. This level of job provision, combined with the proximity of Cardiff to Caerphilly, will undoubtedly mean many more of my constituents commuting to Cardiff. I therefore welcome the measures that the Welsh Government is taking to provide further employment opportunities in areas like the northern Valleys, and I ask that planning policy keeps up with these changes.

We’re not building enough homes, and, even if we don’t agree on the figures and the targets, I think it looks like we can agree that the bludgeon of the local development plan process just hasn’t been the answer. Housing in my area is becoming increasingly a byword for planning inquiry. As we’ve seen in Penllergaer and Pontarddulais, Swansea council is meeting its very difficult targets by earmarking land on the edge of settlements to build huge new housing estates, the type much beloved by developers, for the reasons that Hefin’s mentioned, and, of course, lenders, and the spirit of Bodelwyddan is still alive and kicking.

After years of underinvestment and strategic leadership from Welsh Government, councils have found themselves in a place where they have to find a record number of new homes all in one go, rather than organising more organically in response to local growth need. And the result is the proliferation of much larger developments, or accumulations of smaller ones in places where the existing infrastructure is already overwhelmed—[Interruption.] Yes, mine’s quite long—it’ll have to be fairly quick.

Okay, I’ll do my very best. Thank you for giving way. In response to that point about the failure to build houses organically over the years so that now there’s a glut that needs to be built, would you accept that it’s the failure of Conservative Governments in the 1980s to replace those houses that were sold off to council tenants, quite rightly, but then an alternative wasn’t built to make up for that?

Well, of course, you know that Conservative policy isn’t that anymore, and we are talking about a period of 30 years, which is two generations in terms of house building. I don’t think it’s fair now to pin the blame on the Conservative Government of a time when I was in school, and I’m now old enough to have a Saga holiday.

The cost of these new developments in places where, perhaps, they’re not best situated also has an element of outstripping the developer’s desired profit margin. So, things like section 106 agreements and the new infrastructure levy, actually, don’t meet the overall costs of changes to infrastructure that are needed in these difficult-to-develop places. And, if you’ve been leafleting, you know the kind of place I mean—there’s nothing wrong with the houses, and they’re usually a good mixture of types of stock as well, but they’re often very, very low in social amenities, because the presumption is that you have a car. They’re remotely located and irresponsive to observations put forward about lack of doctors’ surgeries or those huge traffic queues for people going to work or school.

Developments of this kind will always meet pushback, not from Nimbys, but from people with genuine concerns about infrastructure and from those who we were speaking about only just yesterday, actually—people whose whole identity is tied up in their sense of landscape. It’s nearly always confrontational between planner and community, and not infrequently divisive.

From my perspective, despite being of mixed stock, there’s no demonstrable thought given to how an estate may meet the differing needs of an individual family over time—things like the adaptability of each type of property, the layout and how accessible are the main rooms to someone who might develop mobility problems. Is there enough space at ground level for an extension, for example? Are there properties on the development—

Jenny Rathbone rose—

Yes, okay.

On Monday, I opened a development of 24 homes on a brownfield site that had been abandoned for years. Do you not think that more of those sorts of small-scale developments, as part of existing communities, are part of the way forward, rather than massive developments plonked in the middle of nowhere with no transport connections?

Yes, with an extra ‘yes’, Jenny. I absolutely do agree with that.

But this issue of adaptability of properties, I think, is something we do definitely need to take seriously, because, so often on these estates, you’ll find that, particularly in the big ones, older people’s properties, if I can call them that—people who want to downsize and may have some mobility problems—tend to be tucked away, on the grounds that it’s nice and quiet, in places where people don’t necessarily see them, where isolation can develop unobserved, where there’s no social space, where young children will never see and come to know the older people on their estates. There are questions like, ‘Is there sufficient parking for care workers to visit?’, for example, and ‘Is there an accessible bus service to the nearest surgery?’ The answer to those questions is, quite often, ‘no.’ These are more densely populated than the estates of the 1960s and 1970s, with which I’m familiar, yet without the level of public transport or other amenities, the sad thing is these estates still don’t even meet demand.

That’s why I’m interested in what David was saying about how families could live differently in towns and cities, not least because density lends itself to mutuals and shared models of ownership, which are very appealing, I think. High-density urban living is not an argument to depopulate rural Wales; it’s not a notion that will necessarily transfer well to the countryside, although rural towns may have something to take from this. I’m thinking of Aberystwyth, where there’s now a provision gap between those run-down HMOs deserted by students and the city-living style flats with their rent that is double that of a house out in the hinterland villages.

I appreciate I’m running out of time, Chair. The Cabinet Secretary knows my views on redeveloping HMOs into proper family homes, so I hope he’ll bear that in mind, but also, perhaps, consider using Help to Buy for refurbishment of homes, which allows our small construction companies—. Only one in five of our houses are built by small builders; they’re built by big conglomerates, normally. Using Help to Buy to refurbish houses in the centre of towns, I think, is a small contribution towards solving the housing problem. Sorry, I hope that’s okay. Thank you.

Can I start by thanking the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this motion, as, undoubtedly, affordable housing generally, and tackling homelessness in particular, are amongst the biggest issues I think that are facing our country today? Whilst the motion is primarily around house building, I’d like to widen my contribution to focus on the causes of homelessness and possible ways of tackling that problem, of which building affordable homes is one.

Within that, like others, I clearly welcome the commitment from the Welsh Government to build 20,000 new affordable homes by the end of this Assembly, a commitment that I know remains resolute. Contrast that, if you will, to the Tories in England. Their flagship pledge at the time of the launch of their manifesto was that they would build a new generation of social housing, but, within weeks, we witnessed yet another Theresa May weak and wobbly u-turn, with her housing Minister admitting that planned homes would actually be of the significantly less affordable type. Ironic, then, in terms of this motion. Well, possibly. But that’s not the real irony, as far as I’m concerned. When we hear Conservative Members speaking in this Chamber about housing and around problems of homelessness, I wonder when they’re going to have the honesty to acknowledge that their Westminster Government’s austerity measures are a key factor in exacerbating the problems of homelessness in Wales and across the whole of the UK as, incidentally, is the legacy of Thatcher’s Government’s right-to-buy policy that Lee Waters referred to, which decimated social housing stock across the whole of the UK, and from which, 30 years ago or not, we have still not recovered. Those austerity measures that I referred to include the insidious bedroom tax, with the devastating impact on many low-income families. And should the Tories be re-elected tomorrow, we’ll see caps on local housing allowances, which will adversely affect those, particularly, under the age of 35.

Llywydd, only two weeks ago, everyone in this Chamber joined me in condemning the disgraceful practice of landlords offering property rent free or at nominal sums in return for sexual favours, but it is the Westminster Tory policies that are creating an environment where this flourishes. In Wales, at present, nearly 0.25 million people are claiming housing benefits, of which 100,000 are housing association tenants. For those in the greatest need, it is almost certain that the current level of benefits will not cover the cost of rents and service charges, placing the most vulnerable in our society at risk of becoming homeless. So, 20,000 new affordable homes here in Wales would be a significant development, and a Westminster Labour Government after tomorrow, which would reverse the Tory benefit cuts, would help the plight of those facing the prospect of homelessness.

But we also need to address what we can do to help those who are already homeless. As I’ve mentioned before, I spent some time over the winter helping at the night shelter in Merthyr Tydfil, and that brought home to me very starkly the cycle of despair into which the homeless can often fall. With no fixed address, it is very hard to gain employment, and even for those able to gain employment and able to put aside enough to rent a property, the very fact of their homeless status means that many prospective landlords are unwilling to accept bond payments from them and they are generally unable to provide a guarantor for their tenancy. One solution to this particular problem could be the greater use of the Government or local authority acting as the guarantor of last resort for such tenancies—a scheme that I know has operated successfully in some parts of the country. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary recently joined me in applauding the initiative by Merthyr Valleys Homes in trialling the use of shipping containers for conversion into temporary accommodation: something that, perhaps, other local authority areas could also look at.

And then, of course, there are examples from other countries—David Melding did touch on that—of innovative approaches to tackling housing shortages that we should look at and give serious consideration to. In France, there is the IGLOO approach, and I assure you that’s not about building ice houses. That’s an initiative developed by representatives of social housing federations, social integration groups and trade unions, looking specifically at the provision of housing for vulnerable and excluded households. In Finland, a rare example of a European country where homelessness has decreased, there is ‘housing first’, which is a staircase model, supporting the transition of people from the street to night shelter, to hostel, to transitional housing units and then into their own independent accommodation.

So, in conclusion, deputy Llywydd, let’s of course have the discussions about the need for new affordable homes, but rather than getting bogged down on the methodology of just calculating the numbers needed, let’s also commit to tackling the underlying causes of our housing problems.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I could spend my whole contribution trying to take apart the Member for Merthyr’s various accusations. I do think that one accusation is beneath her, in fairness: the accusation she put to the Conservatives that the reason people sell their bodies for housing is because of Conservative policies. I do think that is something that I hope she will reflect on, and maybe come to a more considered point of view.

It is a fact, as David Melding said in his opening remarks, that a whole-market solution is what is required. Because actually, if you look at housing in isolation in one part of it, you will never solve the overall dynamics in the housing market, which is: we haven’t got enough houses—full stop. That is the simple equation. As David pointed out, if we carry on on the current trajectory, and you actually do hit your targets—and there’s not much evidence that you are hitting targets—we’re going to be 66,000 houses short by the year 2030. I think I heard you correctly—or 2031, as such, then. And that’s just on a Wales basis. That’s a huge deficit in the market. Ultimately, for first-time buyers, retirees and those in the middle, that’s going to create a huge pressure on price and make it more unaffordable for people to actually get onto the housing ladder and their stake in society, whether that will be in the rented sector or in the purchase sector. Hopefully, we can all agree with that.

What is disappointing is the current approach of the Welsh Government. I know that, since May of last year, we’ve had the EU referendum, we’ve had the local government elections, and we’re now—tomorrow—going to have the general election, but actually, this Government is in its infancy, if you like; it should be blazing a trail with bright, new ideas coming forward to answer one of the great challenges that we, as a society, do face: how are we going to provide that mixed housing solution? I can see the Cabinet Secretary saying ‘We are’. The evidence is not there, Cabinet Secretary. It clearly is not there, especially when you look at the issues that people are finding in any community the length and breadth of Wales of not being able to secure that roof over their head—that opportunity to have their stake in society. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will—

Jenny Rathbone rose—

I’ll take the intervention in a minute, Jenny. I hope the Cabinet Secretary, in his contribution today, will talk—because it has been brought forward about the spatial planning that was brought forward by the then Minister, Andrew Davies, but I think now has moved into the national development framework—about how that is developing, to look at planning on a regional basis. Because it is fair to say that, sometimes, councils are very parochial in the way they look, trying to meet the overall demand of what we as a country and we as a society need. I’ll take the intervention.

Thank you very much. Will you agree with me that there are three challenges? One is the absolute unaffordability of housing. If we’ve got 0.25 million people on housing benefit, that tells you that the cost of homes is completely unaffordable, and it’s certainly not possible for people on average earnings to be able to afford a mortgage at current prices.

No. 2: we need to ensure that we’ve got a release of brownfield sites—you know, all public bodies and some private bodies are sitting on land that they could be releasing for housing. No. 3: we need to get the financiers to release the money for the imaginative schemes, particularly carbon neutral schemes, which are readily made in Wales, available and tried and tested, which I’m sure people want to live in if it’s going to cut their energy bills massively by having these warm homes.

I wouldn’t disagree with much of what you’ve just said there, to be honest with you. It goes back to the point that I’ve been making: it is a supply-and-demand situation that we face. That’s why I hope the Cabinet Secretary will use his opportunity today, when I’ve talked about the national development framework that I believe is quite central to the way the Government is going to drive some of the bigger schemes regionally that could unleash considerable amounts of money to develop infrastructure projects, such as transport infrastructure projects, and co-sponsor the metro scheme here in south Wales, in particular—. I think I’m correct in saying that, and I’m looking for clarification from the Cabinet Secretary, because, obviously, that section 106 levying of moneys out of developments is well understood locally, and with the current constraints on public finances, we know the public purse just hasn’t got the money to develop a lot of these infrastructure opportunities.

It is a fact that, when I go around my own area of South Wales Central—and that has been very contentious about house building, especially in the Cardiff area—actually most people get that we need more houses. What they are vehemently opposed to is large developments built without the solutions being put in place in the first place—you know, the transport infrastructure, the GP surgeries, the education. If people can have confidence that those solutions are there, by and large they are accepting that there is a need for housing. I should have declared an interest here because I’ve got four young children. Well, not young children—they’re in their teens now, going into their twenties. In a couple of years’ time, they are going to be looking to get their foot on the property ladder as well. I’m sure many Members in this Chamber are in the same situation. You do look at the pricing of housing at the moment and the way that people are going to be able to afford it going forward, and there is a disconnect with the way that people can afford to get their stake in society. Because from a Conservative point of view, that’s how I see housing: it’s a stake in society—your stake in the community. We want to make sure that we can unlock that door of opportunity. As David said in his opening remarks, it is also a massive driver of training potential, economic development and regeneration.

So, I do hope, when we get to the other side of tomorrow—the general election—and we put the three elections behind us that we’ve had in the last 12 months, that actually politically in this institution we can radically embrace some of the radical solutions that we will require to meet the housing deficit that we have the length and breadth of Wales. Because if we don’t, we’re going to be left behind as a country. And with the development of metro mayors across the border, which is developing huge infrastructure projects and regeneration opportunities based around housing developments, then those big multinationals, whether we like them or not, will take their investment on the eastern side of Offa’s Dyke, and won’t come into the western side of Offa’s Dyke, and that’ll be a missed opportunity, not just for this Government, but for the people of Wales.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today’s debate on a very important issue of affordable housing, and in particular affordable housing for young people. There are a variety of different ways in which we can take measures to help young people onto the housing ladder, some of which have been tried by the Government here in Cardiff Bay, but problems persist. The major problem that has been identified by other speakers today is house price inflation outstripping wage increases. So, house prices, even in the south Wales Valleys, which a few years ago were known for relatively low prices, are now beyond the reach of many young people.

The average new build in the Rhondda and Cynon valleys seems to be about £160,000 currently. Average wages for young people are probably between about £15,000, which is roughly the minimum wage level, and £20,000. So, as was identified just now—I think Jenny mentioned it as well—the massive problem is getting from those wage levels on to the kind of money that’s needed to get on the housing ladder. You’ve got two problems: one is saving for the deposit and the other is getting a mortgage on a relatively low salary. So, for many young people, new builds are now way out of their price range. Old terraced houses in the Valleys can still be purchased in some places for about £60,000. But Help to Buy only applies to new build. So, I wonder: should there be any extension of this provision or should there be a similar scheme applying to old build properties to help young people get onto the housing ladder through moving into old houses—relatively old houses?

We do have the Government’s schemes at the moment, one of which is rent to own. I have struggled to find much information on this, and Hannah Blythyn raised the issue recently in the Chamber that information on Help to Buy and rent to own was often difficult to access. Many people are simply not aware of rent to own in my experience, and there is very little information on the Government’s own website about this scheme. So, is anything being done to better publicise these schemes?

One of Plaid’s amendments deals with letting agency fees, which is also presenting a problem for young people, as their amendment recognises. We have wanted a ban on unwanted letting agency fees as well in the past. Now, the Minister has intimated recently, I think, that he would be sympathetic to possibly supporting a private Member’s Bill on this subject, and I think he also said he was looking at the evidence from Scotland, where they did bring in a letting agency ban. There were worries that that might drive up rents, as landlords and agencies seek to recoup the lost fees by simply putting up rents, but I’m not sure there was any evidence to suggest that that was happening. So, I wonder: has the Minister now had time to assess the situation that exists in Scotland, and what are his thoughts now on the letting agency fees situation? Thanks.

I’d like now to call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd, and I thank and welcome this debate today from the Conservative Party. The availability of sustainable housing is a key priority for this Government, and even the UK Government appears now to be waking up to the importance of this issue, judging by their recent White Paper. We welcome their belated conversion. Indeed, Dawn Bowden was right about the launch of the White Paper and the targets within that, only for, a few weeks later, those targets to be dropped by Theresa May and her team.

We recognise the challenges that exist in the Welsh housing sector, Llywydd, based on the principal projection of need in the Holmans report. Wales has, with 5,300 market housing completions a year over the last two years, achieved the numbers identified in that sector, and we will work to increase that still further.

I listened very carefully to David Melding’s contribution, and again very eloquently delivered, but he does live in his own housing bubble, it appears, with his numbers that he chooses to bring to this Chamber. Indeed, Donald Trump would be proud of the fake news-style numbers that the Member uses. Let me share with the Members in the Chamber the real situation of housing, particularly under the Conservative administration. House building under the Tories has fallen to its lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. I know they don't like talking about the 1980s or the 1970s, but let's give some numbers here. An analysis of house building going back more than a century shows that recent Conservative rule, under Cameron and May, has seen the lowest average house build since Stanley Baldwin—your friends again—in Downing Street in 1923. Official statistics; not mine—this was from the House of Commons Library.

An average of 127,000 homes a year have been built in England and Wales since the Tories took office in 2010. [Interruption.] They're all gabbling; they don't like it. The facts are the facts. This is the lowest level of any Government since 1923 that's delivered anything. The target for the housing Bill was dropped by the UK Government under the flagship policy—

David Melding rose—

I'm more than happy to give way to the Member.

I do thank the Minister for putting on the record that we do not build enough houses in the United Kingdom. He's right on that, and, you know, I've heard his reflections on past Conservative Governments. In the current Conservative manifesto, there's a commitment to build 1.5 million homes between now and 2022. That would mean 75,000 more homes in Wales in that same period. You will build less than half that. Do you think your response is adequate?

Why would we start believing you now, when we've seen Theresa May turn on her policies year on year? The facts are that, since 1923, you are lower in this term of government than any other Government, Labour or Conservative. You've got not a leg to stand on.

I acknowledge more needs to be done, Llywydd, to meet the needs for social housing, and I am committed to doing all we can to achieve this. Welsh Government interventions cannot solely be responsible for delivering every home in Wales, either, but we are investing record levels of funding in this term of government—£1.3 billion to support the housing sector across tenures. I am proud of the record in supporting both social and market housing. In the last term of government, we set a target of 10,000 affordable homes, and we were able to deliver 11,500. I think, Andrew, in your contribution, you failed to recognise that we exceeded the targets that we’d set in our last term of government. And in this term of government, we set a target of delivering 20,000 affordable homes, including 6,000 through Help to Buy. The inclusion of Help to Buy reflects the success of the scheme and the importance we are placing on helping those who, as many made reference to, wish to become home owners, as well as those who require social housing.

Amongst those who wish to become home owners, we know there are people who aspire to own their own home but cannot save the deposit while often paying high rates in the private sector. And officials are in the process of developing a scheme, rent to own—that's why the Member won't find anything online, because we haven't launched the scheme yet, but we will be over these next coming months—which will help people to achieve home ownership without any deposit, provided they can afford the market rent.

We rely on our partners in local authorities, housing associations and the private sector to construct the homes we need in Wales, and we all need to listen to, and act on, some of the issues they face in seeking to build more homes. Government, Assembly Members, local councillors, house builders must be willing to work together to address the barriers to house building. I was particularly interested in the contributions of the Conservative Members. I mean, half of the millionaires on the front row, Llywydd, have written to me complaining about housing developments in the past. So, one minute they want housing, and the next minute they don't want housing. So, I don't know what particularly they want. [Interruption.] I'm more than happy to take it if I've got time.

Who on earth are the millionaires, then?

Okay, I will withdraw that. Half the millionaires who aren't on the front row have written to me in terms of not applying new homes.

Llywydd, I'm particularly keen to see SME house builders enter and re-enter the housing building sector. And the number of new homes being built in the UK by SMEs has fallen from around two thirds in the late 1980s to more than a quarter. Now, I plan to make a further announcement in the near future on how we can strengthen our support for SMEs.

Llywydd, I mentioned earlier I want to see a step change in how housing is delivered. I believe there is an opportunity to adopt a new approach to design and delivery. That's why I launched the £20 million innovative housing programme to specifically support alternative and new approaches to building houses, which will help the need of the challenges that Jenny Rathbone has raised with me on many occasions. Alternative, modern methods of construction give us the opportunity to bring people into the housing industry with a different skill set, and new design and delivery can help broaden the labour workforce who can contribute to home building.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Could you explain why it is in this country that house builders generally are so averse to timber-framed housing when they are commonplace in the United States, Canada and in Scandinavia? What is it? Is it the financiers, or is it the house builders who are too conservative and only want to build the less than adequate housing they’re currently building?

I think there’s a little bit of both between home builders and developers and the general public. It’s about acceptance that there’s an opportunity to build and construct with other methods of construction. That’s where the innovation fund—. I’ve started that, and I’ll be making some announcements very soon on new opportunities. I’m sure the Member will be delighted when she hears some of those proposals that will be coming forward. I will be making that, as I said, in the next few weeks, including issues around guidance and funding to drive better alternatives to rough sleeping.

Llywydd, you cannot build homes without land, and Members have raised that issue in the Chamber today. We will continue—and I have already had discussions with Ken Skates and Lesley Griffiths on how we can increase the availability of public-owned land to support house building. We are in the process of legislating to end the right to buy and right to acquire. Unlike the UK Government, we believe this is the only way to protect the social housing stock from further reduction, and while giving councils and housing associations the confidence to build new homes, for many people social housing represents their only chance of a home, and we’re determined to ensure it’s continued with increased availability.

We have a strong track record of bringing empty homes back into market—over 7,500 in the last term of government. Local authorities have a range of powers available to them to accelerate this. Llywydd, there is still much more to do, as I said, though we are making real progress. Statistics released today show that during 2016-17 the number of new dwellings started increased by 2 per cent compared to previous years, and this is the second-highest annual recorded number since 2007-8.

Working with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, I’m keen to use the planning system to increase house building. I listened to Hefin’s contribution and I know he’s made strong representation about processes in the LDP. I think we do have opportunities with the regional development plans that Andrew Davies made reference to in the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. Unfortunately, yet again, that was a very progressive piece of legislation that you chose to vote against. So, one minute you want it and the next minute you don’t. I can’t really understand where you’re coming from. I recognise the importance of infrastructure in public services, but people still need homes and they cannot wait for the end of austerity. So, I cannot support amendment 4. I can, however, assure you that I will be working to align strategic infrastructure projects such as the metro, as the Member raised, with our house building programme.

It is no surprise that I cannot support the Conservative motion. Unlike the Government’s amendment, it fails to set out a comprehensive programme of practical action to meet the wide variety of housing needs in Wales. We can argue for hours about the precise details. David Melding said we should set ourselves out; well, this Government is getting on with the job, alongside our partners in the public and private sectors, rather than the academic arguments that the Member uses—playing the blame game in Wales while we meet the needs of housing here in Wales. Diolch.

I now call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Thank you to all contributors.

In 1999, when Labour first came to power, there was no housing supply crisis in Wales, but they slashed the housing budgets and in their first three terms cut the supply of new affordable housing by 71 per cent. That is why we have a housing supply crisis. As David Melding said, for a generation successive Welsh Governments have failed to tackle the housing crisis in Wales, pursuing mirages rather than addressing housing need. It was the second Assembly when the housing sector came together to start warning the Welsh Government there would be a housing crisis if they didn’t listen. What the Welsh Government did when I brought forward motions supporting the sector’s voice on that was put down amendments to remove the words ‘housing crisis’ rather than to address the warnings from the sector.

As David said, by 2031, unless the Welsh Government change tack, there will be a 66,000 shortage of homes in Wales. As he said, we need ambition because housing is a basic need—we need homes for all. He referred to land, and, as Community Housing Cymru have said, ‘What action is the Welsh Government taking to increase the supply of public land for housing at a price that reflects the social value that they will offer the people of Wales?’ I received that this morning. That’s not history: that’s current.

Dai Lloyd emphasised the need to focus on housing standards and making housing more affordable. Hefin David: the need to invest in weak housing areas and link this to employment opportunities; Suzy Davies: the local development plan process had not been the answer and we need to use housing to stimulate sustainable community regeneration. Dawn Bowden talked about England focusing on less affordable housing, that the Tories in England are focusing on less affordable housing. Well, what England’s doing is focusing primarily on intermediate rent, which is also included within the Welsh Government’s 20,000 target. So, if one’s wrong, both are wrong. That seems a little bit odd. She referred to—again contrasting with England—. Since 2010, more than twice as many council homes have been built in England than in all the 13 years combined with the previous Labour Government, when English waiting lists nearly doubled as the number of social homes for rent in England were cut by 421,000. That’s the reality. Andrew R.T. Davies said we’d not got enough homes, full stop. We need to face the challenge also driving the wider training and economic agenda. Gareth Bennett: house prices outstripping wages. Of course, they are; that’s a symptom of the housing supply crisis.

The Cabinet Secretary showed that he was living in his own housing bubble. Of course, he has form. He’s been the housing Minister before and he, therefore, shares culpability for the crisis the people of Wales are facing in this area. He said house building in England had fallen under the Tories to the lowest level since the 1990s. Well, in reality the 2012 UK housing review said it was the Welsh Government itself that gave housing lower priority in its overall budgets. In 2013, Wales was the only part of the UK to see a fall in new home registrations. In 2015, Wales was the only nation in the UK to decrease new home registrations. Even last year, Wales was the only UK nation to see new home completions go backwards. That’s the reality.

In addition to the Holman report that David Melding referred to, we had two reports in 2015 from the house building industry. We had the 2015 report from the Chartered Institute of Housing, we’ve had the 2015 report from the Bevan Foundation, a report from the Federation of Master Builders, all saying that we needed somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 houses a year, including 5,000 social homes, which this supposedly caring, supposedly socially just Welsh Government ignored. Instead, we’ve got their cynical 20,000 target amounting to just 4,000 affordable homes during the whole Assembly term and that’s inflated by adding intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership to their targets. Housing developers have also repeatedly warned for years and years that the cumulative cost of Labour’s anti-housing legislation and regulations will reduce housing investment in Wales. Well, the figures speak for themselves in that respect.

So, I’ll conclude by simply saying, as the evidence shows, that behind the rhetoric, Labour’s betrayal over housing in Wales for the last 17, 18 years has been perhaps the greatest social injustice inflicted on the people of Wales since they took control in 1999. It’s about time they stopped shaking their heads, they stopped denying the truth, they stopped passing the buck—which they were doing long before the credit crunch, long before the 2010 change of Government—and they started admitting they got it wrong and perhaps, belatedly, trying to do something about it.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.