We currently have a situation where Jeremy Corbyn has more in common in terms of policy with the immediate post-war Governments of Churchill, Eden and Macmillan than either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt as the Westminster Conservatives are changing into the British version of the Republican Party.

Regarding this first supplementary budget on housing, I welcome that an extra £50 million has been allocated to support the delivery of up to 650 affordable homes, although £67,000 as the cost of each home would appear to me, at least, on the low side. But I welcome the following statement by the finance Minister at the Finance Committee—to quote:

'So, the funding for affordable housing will be allocated using the standard social housing grant formula, which means that every local authority will receive their share of the additional funding, and, again, this funding was determined to be a priority because there were projects that could be started in-year, and we would expect schemes from local authorities' programme'.

And specifically, the thing I was most pleased with—the response to the following question:

'Can local authorities use this money to build council houses?'

The finance Minister’s response was,

'Yes, and I would like them to.'

This is something that I am sure will be welcomed by local authorities and by all of us who believe that the current housing crisis can only be solved via the building of council houses.

Can I further welcome the passing on of the additional money for pensions received from Westminster into ministerial portfolios? I join everybody else in being concerned that it was £36 million less than we needed, and that does get me at least to partially understand the Government's reluctance to take over things from Westminster, where, unless the amount of money to run it and the amount of money needed is passed on, we are regularly shortchanged by Westminster over these.

But there was agreed, when Mark Drakeford was the finance Minister, an appeals procedure where, if we thought we'd been treated badly by the Treasury, there was an independent appeals procedure and not just going back to the Treasury and saying, 'We don't like it' and they'll say, 'Well, that's tough; that's where you are.' There's meant to be an independent appeals procedure, and I would hope that the Government would use that.

Teachers' pension support is really necessary. Without it, there'd have been a school crisis. With it, there are school problems; without it, there would've been a school crisis. But remember, the school year and the financial year are different and that the school year runs, as everybody knows, from September right the way through to the middle of July, and the financial year runs from April. So, there's a need for an indication from the Government they will continue to support this for the rest of the school year, otherwise there's going to be a problem with schools in terms of their budgets in-year. And I think a number of people here either have been, or are, governors and are well aware of the problems that can occur in-year if, in April, the money that was coming this year doesn't come through next year, and then, all of a sudden, you've got limited opportunity to start making savings in that year, and it does cause huge financial problems.

I am personally very disappointed at the failure to support the increase in pension contributions for non-teaching staff in schools. That's another cost that has fallen on schools, over which they've had no control. Sometimes you do think they employ more staff or the employer negotiates pay rises—'Well, you did it, you pay it.' But this is something over which they had no control whatsoever, and I'm disappointed the Welsh Government haven't been able to cover that because it's substantially less than the teachers' pay. It's fine to pay pension contributions from the employer, but £5,000, £10,000, £15,000 a school does make a lot of difference. So, I'm really concerned about that.

Can I just finally welcome the £20 million for local government capital? Local authorities can always spend capital. You've got twenty-first century schools, you've got capital maintenance, you've got roads. That money can always be used.

I can see no change to finance transaction capital in this supplementary budget. Can I ask that, at some stage, the Minister can report back on how it is being spent with a profile of expenditure and repayment, and an explanation of the underlying strategy for its use? We know what we can't use it for. We lack, perhaps, an understanding of what we are using it for.

And the future of electric cars and the increased use of renewables is dependent upon improvements in battery technology. Whoever masters improved battery technology in terms of size, length of time the charge is held, minimising loss of electrical energy to other forms such as heat, and the speed of recharge, will revolutionise the industry and, most importantly, create a new industry for our area. So, I hope that money spent on battery technology will work and we become the place where people go to to get batteries.