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.