We turn now to item 8—the debate on the general principles of the abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion—Carl Sargaent.

Motion NDM6367 Carl Sargeant

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion today. I’m pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. I introduced the Bill last March, and it aims to protect the supply of social housing from further erosion in the face of a high level of demand and shortage of supply. As well as abolishing the right to buy and right to acquire, the Bill will encourage social landlords to invest in new social housing, safe in the knowledge that it won’t be at risk of having to be sold after a few years.

Llywydd, the Bill has a solid evidence base. Between 1981 and 2016, over 139,000 local authority and housing association homes were sold under these schemes. Many properties have ended up in the private rented sector, creating higher costs for tenants, and where housing benefit is claimed, that cost can add more to the public purse. While the right to buy has been suspended in some parts of Wales, significant housing pressures still continue across the country, and the Bill abolishes the rights across Wales, meaning that social housing will be protected throughout the country. The Bill was developed following consultation on the White Paper of 2015, which showed clear support for the aims of this Bill.

The Bill will abolish the right to buy, preserved right to buy and right to acquire for social housing tenants, at least one year after Royal Assent. But to encourage investment in new homes, the right will end for homes that are new to the social housing stock, and therefore have no existing tenants, two months after Royal Assent. The Bill includes provisions to ensure that tenants are fully informed, in a timely manner, of the effects of the Bill, and the Bill has been considered by members of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee, and I’m grateful to those three Chairs, John Griffiths, Huw Irranca-Davies and Simon Thomas, and all the Members for the thoughtful scrutiny. I’d also like to place on record my thanks to stakeholders for the evidence that has contributed to the robust report provided to me. Inevitably, some stakeholders do not agree with every aspect, but I believe all recognise the need to safeguard our social housing stock for future generations.

I’m carefully considering the committees’ recommendations, with a view to responding positively to as many of those as possible, either through Government amendments, or by other means, such as guidance. I share the desire expressed by the ELGC committee to ensure the provision of clear and appropriate information to tenants about abolition. If the general principles of the Bill are agreed today, I intend to launch a consultation on the information document to tenants tomorrow. A series of tenant engagement events will form a key element of the consultation. They will be hosted by the Tenant Participation Advisory Service Cymru to gauge the views of tenants on the information, and they will feed the results back to us. I’m grateful to TPAS for their assistance in this matter.

I also intend to consult the financial inclusion steering group of the National Advice Network about the financial aspects of the right to buy and the information provided to tenants also. In addition to providing a copy of the information document to social landlords, the ELGC committee recommends an amendment to require Welsh Ministers to provide other relevant organisations with a copy of the document when it’s issued to social landlords. We do intend to send the document to a wide range of stakeholders, but I consider the recommendation would improve the Bill and I propose to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 following the recommendations of committee.

The committee also recommended an amendment to specify the information that qualifying landlords must provide to all their relevant tenants, such as the dates on which restrictions on the new homes and the full abolition will take place. I also accept the committee’s recommendation, and I recognise concern that tenants may be less well informed than others, and I intend to bring forward that amendment at Stage 2 to specify the minimum information about the effects of the Bill that all social landlords must provide to tenants.

Finally, Llywydd, the committee recommends an amendment to ensure that qualifying landlords communicate the required information to tenants in the most appropriate and accessible ways to meet their varying needs. I appreciate the committee’s concern that the information-for-tenants document should be made available to tenants in whatever way is necessary to meet their needs and I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind this recommendation. However, I do not consider it necessary to make provision in the Bill, as landlords are already very effective in engaging with their tenants. In line with the principle behind the recommendation, therefore, as part of the consultation on the information to be sent to tenants, I will also consult on the best practice for tenant engagement and will also provide advice to social landlords on disseminating that information.

The committee’s other recommendations do not require amendments to the Bill, Llywydd. They recommend that I should work with the relevant advice services to monitor and review the impact of the Bill on the demand for services, with a view to providing additional financial support ahead of abolition if the need arises. We will work with advice services and monitor the impact of the Bill, and I do not anticipate the need for extra resources, but I’m happy to keep this under review.

I also welcome the report from the CLA committee. The committee has asked that I explain the reasoning behind the Bill amending existing UK legislation as opposed to the consolidation of a freestanding Bill. Llywydd, if I may take a moment to explain, the Bill abolishes the right to buy that was established in England and Wales by legislation dating back to 1985. In order to do this, it has to amend existing England-and-Wales legislation insofar as it applies to Wales. To combine these necessary amendments with freestanding independent provision, the Bill would require very extensive restatement of the law relating to the right to buy for a temporary period only. In the Bill—whose whole purpose is to abolish the right rather than to make provision about that—that’s why we’ve moved in that direction. The Welsh Government remains committed to promoting the accessibility and coherence of bilingual Welsh law. In many cases, this will result in consolidation of existing legislation. A general housing law consolidation project would not, however, be an appropriate addition to the Bill, which is making substantive provision about the narrow and discrete area of just housing law on this particular issue. Consolidation of housing law would go well beyond this and needs to be considered on its own merits.

Other recommendations concern the provision of information by the Welsh Ministers to landlords, and the committee recommends amendments are made to the duty of the Welsh Ministers to take all reasonable steps to provide landlords in Wales with the information. Llywydd, while I note the recommendation of the CLA committee, these provisions were also considered by the ELGC committee, who were content with the current arrangements in the Bill. So, I do not propose to bring forward an amendment on this matter on the basis of the recommendations of the ELGC policy committee.

The other two recommendations from the CLA committee for amendments relate to quite technical aspects concerning the detailed drafting of the Bill, and I’ll be seeking further advice on the technical matters ahead of Stage 2, and I will give the committees and the Senedd the opportunity to scrutinise that.

Llywydd, finally, I’m grateful for the scrutiny and support of the Finance Committee. I’m pleased that they are content with the modelling in the RIA, and their view that the burden the Bill could place on the sector would not be too onerous. I formally move.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for the promotion as well.

Galwaf nawr ar Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cydraddoldeb, Llywodraeth Leol a Chymunedau, John Griffiths.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I’m very pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, and I’d like to thank all those who provided evidence to us to help inform our work—in particular, tenants across Wales who took time out to attend our focus group events. I would like to thank the committee for their work on the Bill and to acknowledge their willingness to work together, even when we had quite differing views on important matters relating to the substance of the Bill.

Cadeirydd, our consideration of the Bill focused on testing whether the general principles will deliver the policy aims to protect the supply of social housing from further erosion in the face of a high level of demand and a supply shortage. In our scrutiny, we have considered each of the provisions in detail. In doing this, we have touched on broader issues, including housing supply and the impact of the Housing (Wales) Measure 2011. This Measure was a stepping stone to this legislation, and enabled local authorities to apply to suspend the right to buy and the right to acquire in areas of high housing pressure.

Of course, the right to buy is one of the most well-known public policies, and, since its introduction in the early 1980s, around 135,000, 136,000 local authority homes in Wales have been sold under the scheme. It has been both well used and controversial. In Wales, the policy focus in recent years has been to protect the social housing stock, firstly by reducing the level of discount available, and by offering local authorities the opportunity to apply to suspend the schemes in areas of significant housing pressure. This Bill, then, is the culmination of this approach.

We received strong evidence that indicated that all available policy levers should be used to address the significant housing pressures faced in communities across Wales. We know that there is a high demand for social housing and that most social housing providers could fill each of their properties many times over. We acknowledge that removing the right to buy and the right to acquire is not the only tool at the Welsh Government’s disposal, nor is it the main one in terms of increasing housing supply. However, it will make sure that existing and new social housing is maintained in the sector and can be used for its intended purpose: providing affordable homes for those in greatest need.

We understand that tenants will lose a right that they have been able to exercise for over 30 years, but we agree with the Welsh Government that, without abolishing the rights, there is a risk that these schemes will continue to undermine efforts by the social housing sector to increase the supply of affordable housing. Although the right to buy and right to acquire will be abolished, there are now other initiatives to help people into home ownership, including Help to Buy. Whilst some members of the committee had specific concerns about tenants in suspended areas not having a further opportunity to buy their home, the committee came to the majority view to recommend that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. While supporting those general principles, we have, however, made recommendations that we believe will improve the Bill, and I turn to these areas now.

All of our recommendations look to strengthen those provisions in section 8. These place a duty on Welsh Ministers to publish information to help tenants understand the effect of the Bill before abolition is introduced. It is intended that this information will help tenants to make informed decisions about their options. Cadeirydd, this, of course, is a significant policy change, which overturns that well-known and long-lasting policy of over 30 years. It is, therefore, vital that the Welsh Government takes the lead in making sure that those who may be affected by the change may understand the impact it could have on them, and make decisions about whether they wish to exercise their right to buy or acquire before it is lost permanently.

In recommendation 2, then, we call for the Bill to be amended to require Welsh Ministers to provide the information document to relevant organisations such as advice services and groups representing tenants. We also believe that it is important that tenants across Wales receive consistent information. To this end, in recommendation 3, we call for the Welsh Government to amend the Bill to specify the information that qualifying landlords must provide to tenants. Such information should include the dates on which restrictions and full abolition will come into force.

It is essential that tenants across Wales receive consistent information to ensure that where they live doesn’t affect the amount and quality of information they receive. There should not be a postcode lottery. Closely linked to this, we also recommend that the Welsh Government makes provision in the Bill to ensure that landlords communicate the changes in the most accessible and appropriate way. We have clear evidence to show that this is something that social landlords are good at, but, by amending the Bill as we suggest, we believe that this will ensure consistency across the sector. It will also minimise the risk of any specific groups of tenants not having the information to make informed decisions.

Cadeirydd, I’m grateful for the Cabinet Secretary addressing these issues around information in the Chamber today. I have heard, and Members generally will have heard what the Cabinet Secretary had to say. It goes some way, I believe, to addressing the concerns of the committee, but, obviously, the recommendations we make are as I have outlined them.

Clearly, Cadeirydd, in terms of the advice that will be made available, the importance of tenants having access to clear and impartial advice as to whether to exercise their right to buy or acquire is vital. We were not persuaded of the need for additional advice services, but we do feel it is important that the Cabinet Secretary monitors the impact of the Bill on the demand for existing advice services and considers providing additional support, if necessary. Again, I’m pleased that that Cabinet Secretary addressed those issues in his opening speech today, Cadeirydd, and we will all, I think, reflect on how that’s taken forward in due course.

Cadeirydd, we welcomed the opportunity to review the draft information for tenants, which was provided by the Cabinet Secretary during our scrutiny, which was very useful. By doing this, we were able to share it with stakeholders and get their views on it, and our final recommendation suggests this should be taken further by the Welsh Government and the information document tested with tenants to ensure that it is fully fit for purpose.

Cadeirydd, I can see that my time has elapsed, so, in conclusion, Cadeirydd, we recognise the importance of this recommendation. We were very pleased to contribute to the legislative proposals and we hope that our work will improve the eventual Act. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr. Galwaf ar Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, ac mae’n bleser gen i siarad ar ran y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn fyr iawn, jest i amlinellu goblygiadau ariannol y Bil Diddymu'r Hawl i Brynu a Hawliau Cysylltiedig (Cymru).

Bydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid am dynnu sylw’r Cynulliad yn benodol at yr amrywiaeth eang yn y ffigurau yn yr asesiad effaith rheoleiddiol—yr RIA—wrth amcangyfrif y costau neu’r manteision posibl a allai godi o weithredu darpariaethau’r Bil. Mae’r ffigurau a ddarperir yn amrywio o fudd posibl o £57.4 miliwn i gost bosibl o £75.3 miliwn. Byddai hwn, fel arfer yn achosi pryder, mae’n siŵr, ond eglurodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet mai ansicrwydd wrth ddarogan nifer y gwerthiannau eiddo oedd y rheswm am yr amrywiad. Rhoddodd fanylion am y dull modelu a ddefnyddiwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru i fesur yr effaith ariannol ar landlordiaid cymdeithasol, ac roedd hyn yn fodd o ddarparu sicrwydd i’r pwyllgor.

Mae rhai rhanddeiliaid wedi lleisio pryder y gallai cynnydd o ran ceisiadau gan denantiaid cymwys i arfer eu hawl i brynu arwain at gynnydd yn y llwyth gwaith yn y cyfnod o flwyddyn yn dilyn y Cydsyniad Brenhinol. Credwn fod yn rhaid pwyso’r pryder hwn yn erbyn honiad Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet bod llawer o gefnogaeth i’r Bil yn y sector tai—cefnogaeth sydd wedi ei atseinio gan John Griffiths, Cadeirydd y pwyllgor, sydd newydd adrodd.

Yn olaf, felly, hoffwn ailadrodd mater y mae’r Pwyllgor Cyllid hwn, a’r Pwyllgor Cyllid blaenorol hefyd, wedi’i godi sawl gwaith yn ymwneud â chostau gweithredu darpariaethau is-ddeddfwriaeth. Yn achos y Bil hwn, mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi ein sicrhau bod y costau y gellir eu rhagweld wedi cael eu hystyried yn llawn. Diolch.

Very brief. I now call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. We reported on this Bill on 7 July, and we made five recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary. In general, we were satisfied with the balance struck between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation, and also that human rights are engaged as set out in the explanatory memorandum and the Cabinet Secretary’s evidence to us.

However, we did suggest that we would have liked to have received a more thorough explanation as to why the Cabinet Secretary chose to introduce a Bill that amends existing UK legislation, rather than one that is consolidated and freestanding. So, I’m actually very grateful today, and the committee is very grateful, for him setting out his views and further clarification on the record here today in the Chamber. That was very helpful indeed—and also for his comments on bilingual Welsh law, as well as the future of consolidated legislation.

We made two recommendations in relation to section 8 of the Bill. Firstly, it has been a long-standing view of the committee that for law to be effective, citizens must know what is expected of them. So, we therefore welcome the requirement set out on the face of the Bill to prepare and publish an information document aimed at assisting tenants in understanding the effects of this Bill. However, we note that the Bill requires the Welsh Ministers to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to provide every qualifying landlord with a copy of this document. We did not consider that that went far enough, so we therefore recommended that the Cabinet Secretary should table an amendment at Stage 2 to place an absolute duty on the Welsh Ministers to provide all qualifying landlords in Wales with the information document.

Now, we recognise the challenges in accessing landlords based outside of Wales, and recommendation 3 of our report reflects that position. In the Cabinet Secretary’s remarks today, he noted in those remarks that the ELGC committee considered this matter too, and were content on the shape of the Bill proposals as they stand. So, we would simply ask the Minister whether, therefore, he will look again at this as Stage 2 approaches to see if it is unduly onerous and unduly complicated and, if not, perhaps he would give further consideration to our recommendation there.

We made two recommendations also in relation to section 9 of the Bill about regulation-making powers. The first of these seeks to reduce the breadth of power, and the second is aimed at improving clarity. Now, I note and I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s comments in regard to those two recommendations today that he will be seeking further evidence ahead of Stage 2 of the Bill, and I’m sure members of the committee and Members of the house here will duly return to these matters at that stage. And I thank my committee members and our team for their scrutiny of this Bill.

Chair, we need to build more homes—many more homes. This is the only way to meet the housing crisis. Demand for housing has outstripped supply in Wales, as across the UK, for many years. The extra requirement for housing is mainly due to the increase in the number of households, especially one-person households, but also other factors such as the increase in the overall population. The sustained attack on the right to buy is a marginal diversion from the main issue—a lack of house building. The abolition will remove a vital opportunity for social housing tenants to become home owners. It has been a massively popular policy—perhaps the most acclaimed of the twentieth century.

Instead of addressing housing needs through appropriate house building rates, the Welsh Government has set a target of 20,000 additional affordable homes in the current Assembly—welcome, but insufficient. Since 2004, successive Welsh Governments—always involving Labour, one involving Plaid—have been warned of the impending housing crisis, unless house building was dramatically increased.

Professor Holmans’s report, which was commissioned by the Welsh Government—I give it credit for that—and is entitled ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’ estimated that Wales needs up to 240,000 new housing units, or 12,000 annually, between 2011 and 2031, under what is called the alternative projection. This means that, even if the Welsh Government succeeds in meeting its own targets, in 2031 Wales will have a shortfall of some 66,000 homes, or a town the size of Merthyr.

But the worst aspect is that the Welsh Government is not even meeting their inadequate targets. The new housing completion rate consistently falls short of the target set by the Welsh Government, with just 6,900 homes completed in 2015-16, as opposed to the target of 8,700. The last time the Welsh Government achieved its own housing target was in 2007-08. If the Welsh Government really wants to tackle this housing crisis, they need to stop wasting time on peripheral factors such as abolishing the right to buy, and need to adopt the alternative projection that was put forward by Professor Holmans. In 2015, the Federation of Master Builders argued that Wales needs 14,000 more homes a year to keep up with demand. Whatever projection you take, it is quite clear that the Welsh Government is falling very, very far behind anything like an adequate rate of house building.

As the Minister said, between 1981 and 2016 139,000 homes have been sold under the right to buy. And you have to say it’s met its intended purpose—139,000 families have been supported into home ownership, and that’s something that the Welsh Conservative Party warmly welcomes. It’s however the case that, in recent years, the sale of social housing stock has been at very low levels, therefore having a marginal impact on overall housing availability. The impact is only felt at all because the Welsh Government is not building enough homes—that’s the root problem. And, indeed, the Welsh Government’s own research, whilst developing this legislation, found that, and I quote,

‘The Right to Buy has had very little or no impact on the ability of local authorities to invest in new social housing over the last ten years…. Other factors, such as the economy and the availability of land and funding appear to carry greater influence.’

I only wish you listened to you own expert advisers in this respect and tackled these problems, because that is obviously what we need to do.

Now, I have to say, even the most successful policies should be reviewed from time to time. And if the Welsh Government were to propose a reform of the right to buy, then we would engage constructively with that, because there are some arguments that can be made for that sort of policy. But—

Will you take an intervention?

Briefly, yes.

Do you accept that there will always be a need for social housing stock, and are you ideologically opposed to social housing?

Not only do I accept there should always be social housing stock, I think for very many people by far the best option for them is social housing, and we should meet that demand, and build more social homes. That’s what we need to do. And I just wish that the Government had brought forward policies on that basis, to meet the undoubted crisis that we are in in general on house building.

I now have to conclude, as time is running short. Regrettably, Chair, the Welsh Conservative Party is in a minority on this subject. I’m enough of a realist to acknowledge that. So, assuming that this motion will pass—not with our help—we will then, as a party, move to the next stage and seek to constructively amend the Bill. Our main priority will be to strike the correct balance between the rights of tenants to a reasonable transition period—all tenants—and, if it’s the will of the Assembly, an end to the right to buy. That will be our main focus.

Chair, can I just say finally—

Yes, could you conclude, please?

I’ll take this opportunity to thank the chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths. I did say that I was the minority voice, but I do thank you, John, for the exemplary way you chaired the committee and ensured that I had every opportunity to advance the concerns I had in the preparation of the report. Thank you.

Plaid Cymru will support proceeding with this legislation today. It’s about time that it happened. It puts right a historic error that has contributed to an inadequate supply of social housing in Wales.

Every week I, like many of you, have people coming to my surgery with housing problems—people living in inappropriate social housing, or they live with relatives, are about to become homeless, or they can’t find social housing and they don’t have enough points to move up the waiting list. This is something that happens on a weekly basis.

The committee report does reflect general agreement on the principles, apart from the clear dissent of the Conservative Member. My colleague Jocelyn Davies did a great deal of work in this area as Minister for housing, and I praise her for establishing the processes that have enabled local authorities to suspend the right to buy. In a way, this legislation simply confirms that good practice.

Just a few things on the right to buy: it didn’t make much financial sense because it was a subsidy for those who had some money behind them and happened to be in the right place at the right time. It didn’t benefit people in blocks of flats in areas that weren’t attractive, who couldn’t get mortgages. It did mean a reduction in the social housing stock, increasing the problems of overcrowding and homelessness as a result. In some cases, it did create profits for buy-to-let landlords, creating poorer housing conditions, more often than not.

The Llywydd took the chair.

So, it is about time that we made progress in this area, and we do need the investment, too. I agree with what David Melding has said—we do need that investment also, which will bring forward a new wave of social housing. This legislation alone won’t solve the problem of a shortage of supply of social housing, but unlike the Conservatives we do believe that it is part of the jigsaw. It’s not a peripheral issue; it’s part of the solution, and one that should lead to an increase in investment and more social housing being available.

Having passed this Bill, there will be some people in social housing who would still want to purchase their own homes, and I have some sympathy with that, of course. So along with this legislation we need to develop shared equity options and rent-to-buy schemes—schemes that housing associations have made use of in the past. We should also seek alternative ways of helping people to move towards owning their own homes, if that is their desire.

Finally, there is a risk as the deadline approaches—a risk that we will see some organisations offering funds to people to buy their homes with a view to making a quick profit. Some people have described this as something that needs to be avoided specifically. It was discussed in committee and we did receive some evidence to that end. I do think that this deserves further consideration and further research, and we should consider providing independent financial advice to those who need it.

I’m also concerned that there could be a sudden increase in the number of people wanting to purchase their homes before this Bill is enacted, reducing the stock further—this spike that some have mentioned. I would like to see the Government giving greater consideration to that aspect, too. Thank you.

The Welsh Government’s abolition of the right to buy Bill seeks to address the issue of the social housing stock, and this certainly is a serious issue, but of course we have to find the most effective means of addressing the problem.

There are various aspects to the housing crisis. Abolishing the right to buy is one way of looking at the problem, but it is only a small part of the overall picture. There are only insignificant numbers of right-to-buy sales being transacted now, in comparison to 20 or 30 years ago. We in UKIP accept that the right to buy has been problematic in some ways. It was wrong that the proceeds of council house sales were not allowed to flow back into the pot of money allowing new council houses to be built. We would advocate a policy whereby all future revenue from right-to-buy sales is ploughed back into social housing. We do accept the evidence that this would, in itself, in no way facilitate a like-for-like replacement of one social housing property sold for another one built. This is not economically feasible, as various witnesses asserted during the inquiry at the committee stage.

But there are a variety of tools available to the Welsh Government to stimulate further house building in Wales. In UKIP, we advocate the construction of more factory-built modular homes, which could be much more affordable than conventionally built houses. And the Welsh Government’s own finance Minister, Mark Drakeford, recently alluded to the problem of land banking, whereby major property developers hold considerable land assets, but not do build on them for many years. With the advent of the Welsh Government’s new tax powers, ways could be devised—again, as Mark Drakeford has suggested—in which to prod the developers into building. We think this could open up a new vista of opportunity.

When the Minister brought his proposed legislation to the ELGC committee, I was broadly sympathetic to the objectives, and I listened to the evidence. I’ve taken the Government’s case back to the UKIP group to test out the propositions, and to subject them to robust discussion and debate. Ultimately, the group took a decisive view that removing the right to buy was too strong an impediment to the aspiration of property ownership. Therefore, as a group, we are not supporting the general principle of the Bill, and we would urge the Minister to look at the other levers he now has available to him to allow for much higher levels of house building in Wales than we’ve seen in recent years.

I acknowledge that the right to buy has been very important for many, many families, particularly those who have a child with a disability and who worry about what’s going to happen to that person when they die. Enabling them to leave them their home does provide some security for that individual who may be vulnerable and unable to earn their own living. So, I’m not ideologically opposed to the right to buy, but I think that the combination of the right to buy and the failure to replace the housing stock has led to a perfect storm. And that is why we need to take this measure.

Because there wouldn’t have been a problem if the receipts from the right to buy had been ploughed back by the Treasury into local authorities to enable them to replace the stock, obviously including the discount, which was pretty substantial at the very beginning, and had it also been accompanied by the building of private houses as well, but the opposite was the case: the private house builders have been sitting on their hands and simply failing to build the quality, affordable new homes that people need. This, in particular, for young people has meant an absolute storm. Because if you don’t have a child you’re not eligible for social housing, they are pushed into the private rented sector and it is so overpriced that they are simply unable to save the money to get a deposit. People put up with this while they don’t have children, particularly students—they put up with terrible housing conditions—because they think, ‘Well, this is temporary and I’ll be moving on next year’, but once you start having children it’s absolutely desperate, because it means that your children can never establish the security of being able to continue to go to the same school. They can be moved on year after year, and they have absolutely no security of tenure.

So, I absolutely agree that we need to build a great deal more homes, but I know that the Cabinet Secretary is having huge difficulty achieving the challenging targets that have already been set. If, David Melding, you had access to the magic money tree that Theresa May has, then maybe we could all be building more homes, and that is what we would like to do—both private and social housing.

I just want to finally say that, if we hadn’t been planning to do this measure we would certainly have needed to do so after the Grenfell fire because I think the Grenfell fire changes everything. I think that the behaviour of many local authorities in London who have been exporting the poor at a rate that is extraordinary, particularly those local authorities who decided to demolish housing estates to make way for new private sector developments, is completely unacceptable and will need to be put a stop to. I confidently predict that all local authorities will have an obligation to plan for and meet the social housing needs of their populations. But, for now, we couldn’t, I don’t think, go on allowing stock to fall outside the social sector at almost the same rate at which we plan to build. Therefore, it was completely correct—

Will the Member give way? The figures are—. Even if the Minister hopes to build getting on for 3,500 to 4,000 social homes a year, there are barely 400 sold at the moment, so there is a big difference.

Okay. Well, I accept that, now, with the reduction in the discount, that is less. But the fact is that social housing organisations are telling us that they are very reluctant to build new social housing if they think it’s then going to be used to exercise the right to buy, and that is what is holding them back. We need to give them that certainty that that is not what is going to happen. If the situation changes and there’s a huge amount more money coming into local authorities to build social housing, then we can completely revisit this but, at the moment, it isn’t possible to do this and we absolutely have to build more homes of all types, and therefore I think this measure is entirely appropriate.

The explanatory memorandum to this Bill begins:

‘The Welsh Government is committed to doing all it can to help people meet their housing needs….This Bill…recognises the importance of safe, secure and affordable homes as being part of the fabric of people’s lives and of strong communities.’

A bit, sadly, of a tragic and sick joke. By the time the Conservatives left Government in 1997, right-to-buy sales in Wales were being replaced on an almost like-for-like basis, but, during the first three Assembly terms, Welsh Government figures show that Welsh Government—Labour Welsh Government—cut the number of new social homes by over 70 per cent, as waiting lists mushroomed, and the 2012 UK housing review said it was the Welsh Government itself that gave housing lower priority in its overall budgets. By the time of the second Assembly, the Homes for Wales campaign was warning that there would be a housing crisis. It was dismissed by the Welsh Government. As the opening paragraph of the October 2014 Homes for All Cymru manifesto states, ‘There is a housing crisis’; a crisis caused by Labour’s failure to build new affordable homes since 1999, not the right to buy.

Welsh Labour’s intention to abolish the right to buy in Wales would deny the prospect of home ownership to tenants and miss another opportunity to increase affordable housing supply and start tackling that housing supply crisis. The tenant’s right to buy has been the most effective low-cost home ownership scheme ever, but it did not herald an end to social housing supply, but a switch to not-for-profit housing associations as main providers, because they could access greater finance and build more homes focused on outcomes. There are of course restrictions on purchase. A tenant must have been a resident and paying rent for a minimum of five years and the size of discount is determined by the length of tenancy. If tenants sell early, they have to repay discount. Of course, most don’t. Independent research showed that two thirds of tenants who purchased were still resident two decades or more afterwards. Other independent research has shown that tenants in local authority properties are, on average, going to be remaining in them for a further 15 years or more, showing that the impact on supply of abolishing right to buy would be absolutely negligible.

The proposed scrapping of the right to buy does nothing to create more homes or increase the number of households with their own front door. As the Welsh Affairs Committee found some years ago, the suspension of the right to buy would not in itself result in an increase in the supply of affordable housing.

By contrast, the Welsh Conservatives did set out proposals to reform right to buy, investing the proceeds of sales in new social housing, thereby increasing affordable housing supply and helping to tackle Labour’s housing supply crisis, reflecting right-to-buy policy in England, where the UK Government after 2010 committed to reinvest, for the first time ever, the additional receipts from right-to-buy sales in new affordable rented housing. If a council fails to spend the receipts there within three years, they’re required to return the unspent money to Government, with interest.

Independent research presented to an Assembly committee some years ago showed us that, for each three sales, the money released could generate two new homes for two new households. By comparison, abolition will, by itself, not build a single additional home, won’t increase supply, and won’t therefore improve affordability. Between 2010 and 2015, more than twice as much council housing was built in England than in all 13 years combined of the last Labour Government at UK level, when English waiting lists nearly doubled as the number of social homes for rent there was cut by 421,000. The explanatory—

Will you take an intervention?

Briefly.

Thank you. I thank you for taking the intervention. Do you agree with the House of Commons research library that the Conservative Government has built the fewest number of houses in England and Wales since Baldwin?

Wales has been Labour since 1999, nothing to do with England, and England numbers have gone up since Labour left power. That’s what the statistics say. You created the crisis. You live with it. You do something about it.

The explanatory memorandum to this Bill states that between 2011-12 and 2015-16, a total of 11,508 additional housing units were built, but this has been inflated by the inclusion of low-cost home ownership and intermediate rent homes. But Welsh Government figures also show that in the same time period, the total number of dwellings completed in Wales was 29,939, compared with 47,598 between 1992-93 and 1996-7, the last five years in which a Conservative Government was responsible for housing in Wales.

Welsh Government figures also reveal that only 4,347 dwellings were completed by registered social landlords and councils in Wales between 2011-12 and 2015-16, compared with 13,558 during the last five years when a Conservative Government was responsible for housing in Wales. This is why Wales has an affordable supply crisis, and why this cynical Bill is simply an ideological smokescreen for Labour’s great housing betrayal. You may smile, Minister. You should be shaking your head in shame, because you caused this, and you sat there ignoring the warnings of crisis, and now you’re pretending the crisis was of somebody else’s creation. Well, you’re good at blaming other people. Isn’t it about time you started taking responsibility for the mess that you have made?

I think I’d like to congratulate some of the Labour AMs for doing their bit for the housing crisis, given that so many of them are landlords, and have an interest in more than one property. I find that slightly hypocritical, to be frank. [Interruption.]

Will you take an intervention before you go any further?

No, no. There are going to be AMs voting here—

If you throw it, you need to take it back.

Take what back?

Your insinuation.

I’m congratulating you all on doing your bit for the housing crisis by owning extra properties.

Will you just continue, Neil McEvoy?

Okay. I think, really, this is more of a PR stunt than anything else. I’m yet to hear of a valid response to, if a house is sold and the money is put back into the system and replaces the stock, what is wrong with that? I’ve not really heard an answer to that, because, I think, across the Chamber here, nobody agrees with reducing the social housing stock in Wales. One thing we’re all missing, also, is that there are thousands of long-term empty properties that should be renovated. We should be employing local builders to renovate those properties and house people quickly.

In terms of solutions, I think most public bodies in Wales are short on capital, but there are huge pension funds in every local authority, which should be harnessed for capital investment, with a scheme to provide social housing for rent and also, if people can afford it, to be bought. I think that’s a very valid proposal and would finance a hell of a lot of house building. Because, if you look at the private sector, and people investing pension funds, one area they will always invest in is housing. The asset accrues value and also there’s almost an immediate rate of return on the property.

So, I think, to come back to what I said earlier, what disturbs me about this is that—of course, I’m bound by the whip today, but what disturbs me about this is that there are people sat in this Chamber who don’t own one property, they’ve not got an interest in two, some have an interest in three, and they’re telling working-class people on our estates that they cannot be allowed to own their own property. Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy.

It’s a pleasure to follow two combative speakers in comparison with which I can be made to look moderate and consensual. [Laughter.] It’s a curiously retrogressive Bill, this, because one of the policies that made Labour unelectable in the 1980s was its determined opposition to the introduction of the right to buy. Of course, the numbers are very different now so possibly it may not have quite the same toxic effect on the Labour Party as their attitude did then. Also, I have a curious sense of déjà vu, because I had a part in persuading the Thatcher Government to include housing associations in the housing Bill of 1979, which gave to housing association tenants the same rights that were proposed for council tenants, and, for the same reasons as David Melding has outlined, a very good thing it was too in increasing the diversity of ownership in estates.

This is an ideological Bill because it’s always seemed rather absurd to me, in terms of social policy, that a Government should subsidise the bricks and mortar rather than those who need help with being able to afford a roof over their head. It’s, of course, an extremely expensive way for catering for a social need, actually to build houses as opposed to provide people with the means of paying rent.

The figures are unambiguous that this Bill is totally irrelevant to the solution to the housing crisis that we have in Wales. Just look at the figures. Local authorities sold under the right-to-buy provisions last year only 141 houses. Registered social landlords sold 133 under the right-to-acquire legislation; they sold voluntarily 299. So, the total number of houses in local authority ownership and RSL ownership that were sold under the right-to-buy legislation was only 274 in a housing stock of 1.4 million houses in the whole of Wales. So, clearly, this has no significance at all beyond an ideological one for the Labour Party, now reverting to type after 20 or 30 years. If we look at the stock figures, this is quite dramatic. Local authorities currently own 87,000 properties for rent. RSLs own 137,000. There are privately-rented houses in Wales—202,000. Owner occupation—nearly 1 million. And what we’re talking about here is 274 houses or flats that have been sold under the right-to-buy legislation in a year.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Between 1 April 1981 and 31 March 2016, 139,000 local authority housing association homes were sold off. That’s 45 per cent. None of them were replaced.

It’s true, over the time period involved. Yes, 139,000. In the same—[Interruption.] In the same period, the number of houses or flats that are rented privately has risen by 110,000. So, the market changes and there is a housing crisis for the reason that David Melding pointed out. We have a perfect storm in a sense because we have very significant restrictions on building through the planning legislation, on the one hand, and we know that, with the immigration figures, there’s tremendous pressure on demand, as well as for the reasons of splitting up households and single occupation. There is an increased demand for property, and we know that, despite all the talk of austerity that we constantly hear in this Chamber, the vast increase in the amount of money in circulation through quantitative easing has actually fed largely into asset prices, and there’s been a ripple effect that has worked outwards from London and the south-east. So, if we want to solve the housing problem—and, of course, we all do—then we have to look elsewhere than this measure to achieve that result.

But what I find so extraordinary about this is that this has been a great liberating policy over the years for hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to own their own houses. The fact that they were in council ownership or social housing ownership didn’t mean that they would be moving out to exercise their desire to own their own property and then making their properties available to others who needed them. Properties are locked up for generations, often, by people who live in local authority housing or social housing. That doesn’t in any way mean that you are going to be able to satisfy the social objectives that we all agree about. I was in favour of a property-owning democracy, and I still am, and I’m in favour, as Neil McEvoy pointed out, of aspirational working-class people being able to participate in it.

Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you, Llywydd—I didn’t realise I was going to be called. In March of this year the Welsh Government announced it was introducing the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. In the months since, there has been an emerging near consensus in broad support for the general principles of the Bill. Too many pundits have closed their ears to practical solutions that do not follow a market-based solution, but, for a new generation of voters, this is simply commonsense ideology. This will be taking control of key utilities that have so badly let them down, or shaping a housing policy that works for people and not markets, and, to ordinary people, they care little about the rationale behind Thatcher’s revolution; they want to know, simply: is it working for me and my family?

So, what is the reality of housing and social housing in Britain and Wales? There is a huge demand out there, a demand that can cause untold heartache, overcrowding, poor mental health, and spoilt childhoods for thousands of families. The Welsh Government alone seem to recognise this and are building new council houses. It is worth noting that the right to buy was not Margaret Thatcher’s idea, nor did it originate with her. What she did was to create, as I pointed out, a dogmatic version that removed any flexibility for policy on the ground—no room for councils to act on the basis of declining stock.

Labour Governments in the 1970s allowed councils to sell off stock, but on a very managed and sustainable basis. The Tories, in my view, could not help themselves in creating the chaos that they always do, which has led to where we are today. This includes former council homes in the hands of hugely wealthy foreign investors in parts of the UK where key workers desperately need them—disenfranchised, those on the list, those watching. What form of dogmatic nonsense would it be to further build only to sell off? As politicians, we have to be controlled by practicalities. In his statement introducing this Bill, Carl Sargeant stated:

‘Our supply of social housing is under considerable pressure. Between 1 April 1981’— as I’ve stated—

‘and 31 March in 2016, 139,000 local authority and housing association homes’—

45 per cent of that stock—

‘were sold under the right to buy’, and these houses were not replaced.

What sort of dogmatic Government would see this and do nothing, based on an outdated ideology of a housing market that has been so exposed as having failed? It is not just, as has been said previously, about that. We all saw the tragedy in Kensington, a borough that cannot provide its residents with adequate housing, but continues to allow whole blocks to be built as investment properties. These empty blocks symbolise where we have gone wrong with housing. The Tories talk today about the importance of family and home, but cynically refuse to answer any practical questions, and waxing lyrical about a supposed panacea of the 1980s while failing to talk about it now. So, how can Welsh families trust a party that would build no council houses, sell off the few we have left, and, more cynically, use housing at a local level as a political football?

Finally, I want to talk of the importance I place on delivering on promises made, and in 2016 we saw a Welsh Labour Government returned by the people of Wales. We stood on the abolition of the right to buy in our manifesto, and I believe we must now deliver.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate. Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate on the Bill and the comments made by most of the Members today. Undoubtedly, there are points of detail that, as we progress through the scrutiny process, we will need to consider further. There are also commitments that I’ve made in areas that need development, and I thank the Chair and all of the committee for their constructive approach to the programme as we take that forward.

I repeat the comments I’ve made many times already, Llywydd, that I want to approach these reforms on a collaborative and cross-party basis, but it appears very clear that some of the opposition parties are clearly not in that space. Indeed, Gareth Bennett, during committee stages, was very promising in terms of his approach to the Bill and the supportive nature of that, but he said he formed an argument in the group that he took to the UKIP colleagues, and it’s clear to me that Neil Hamilton told him that he wouldn’t be supporting this Bill for no other reason than that.

The fact is that they’re statistically selective on all of the issues that they’ve raised today, including my great friend David Melding. I think his contribution was distorted in the figures that he used today. He seems to believe that the 20,000 units that we are pursuing from Government are the only homes that are ever going to be built in Wales. It’s our 20,000 contribution, plus the private sector, that will deliver the housing need for our communities. I will give way.

I did say, ‘affordable homes’; I didn’t say ‘total number of homes’; I said ‘affordable’.

And it’s very clear also that the Member raised the issue of the performance of this Labour administration since 1999, and he was ably supported by Mark Isherwood’s shout and contribution.

Let me give him some facts about the right to buy and, indeed, Joyce Watson’s intervention was absolutely right. The Conservative Governments under Theresa May and David Cameron have failed to deliver homes across the UK. In fact, it’s the lowest amount of homes delivered by a Conservative administration since 1923. So, we’ll take no advice from you on building new homes in Wales. You need to get it right from the centre, too. Giving £1 billion to the Northern Ireland administration is one opportunity that you could deliver for Wales here so that we can build more homes. Give us what we rightly deserve here in Wales, too, rather than complaining from the edges.

The other fact I think it would be worth mentioning in this Chamber is that, for the last five-year period—up-to-date figures—between 2012-13 and 2016-17, under the one-for-one additions policy—this is the one that Mark Isherwood tells us about, selling one, building one—I’ll tell you what happened in England: 54,581 right-to-buy sales by local authorities in England. What did they build? Twelve thousand, four hundred and seventy-two. That’s not quite one-to-one in my mathematics. So, don’t give me the rhetoric of building—[Interruption.] I’m not taking an intervention just yet, but I will if I get some more time in a little while.

Finally, in terms of some more details that colleagues have brought forward—Sian Gwenllian, I’m very grateful for your commitment to support the Bill. I’ve met with your lead Member on housing and am very grateful for the support that she has been able to give from the group. You’re absolutely right, the issue of rent-to-own and the spike does worry me in terms of what that may allude to, but I think the positive outcomes of the long-term policy objectives of this outweigh the issue of the spike over the 12-month period. But I will work with your colleagues to see if we can find a way through that.

I think—again, Huw Irranca raised the issue with regard to the absolute duty on Ministers in terms of advice. I will give that some further consideration, but I did listen to the advice of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and they were very clear on what their views were, but I will reconsider that.

Again, what may be useful to Members, on the basis that some Members have used statistics that I just don’t recognise here—the fact of the matter is £4.4 million extra cost to the UK Government on housing benefit for ex rent-to-buy properties that are now in the private-rented sector. So, how does it make economic sense to do that in the first place? I think, again, Members should consider this as a suite of tools to provide social housing and housing further for the people of Wales. The products that we’re developing in our department, such as rent-to-own and other administrative processes through Rent Smart Wales and other factors in the Housing Bill, now the Housing Act, give us the opportunity to use this suite of tools to create a better housing solution for all people in Wales. I wasn’t going to respond to the master of conspiracy, Mr McEvoy, in that he doesn’t support the socialist principle of ending the right to buy. I am quite surprised as his party has been very supportive of this approach. Indeed, I think it was part of your manifesto approach and it’s something I’m grateful for—that support. I would ask him to reflect on his contribution and to maybe be more positive in his support for this Bill.

Llywydd, I’m very grateful for the opportunity to bring Stage 1 to the committee. It’s always an interesting debate when Mr Melding has his clear views on this Bill. I will look forward with vigour—. The conversations will continue, I’m sure, as we move forward, but my offer is for more consensus around the opportunities that this Bill presents in terms of making a better solution on housing for the people in Wales who are most in need. I formally move.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I defer the vote on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.