Research commissioned by Tai Pawb, Shelter Cymru and the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru found that introducing the right to adequate housing would generate significant savings for the public purse. Indeed, the independent analysis identified benefits to the public purse worth £11.5 billion, against overall costs of £5 billion over a 30-year period. It's projected that those benefits could start to outweigh costs after just six years. It would save £5.5 billion in improving well-being, £2 billion from local council budgets, £1 billion for the NHS, £1 billion for the criminal justice system, and it would generate £1 billion in additional economic activity.

By investing in adequate housing for all, through spending on social and affordable housing in Wales, you could make vital and significant savings in the long run. So, today, I'd like to urge the Welsh Government to think differently about spending decisions. A slight increase in the social housing grant is welcomed, but we need to see much more going into this pot if we're to achieve our ambitions. It's also disappointing to see funding to achieve quality housing decrease by some 7.5 per cent from the original February indicative budget, on top of the squeeze brought about by huge inflation in the housing sector. How can you hope to achieve your ambitions across the board if you don't properly fund the most basic of essentials, housing? In the short term, it's also disappointing that we've seen no increase in the housing support grant. We've heard this Government rightly make a lot of noise about the UK Government's failure to increase the local housing allowance, but these complaints ring very hollow when we see that this Government is giving a flat settlement, a real-terms cut, for the housing support grant here. This is something we can do here in Wales, and we should be doing.

I note that the budget for building safety has been slashed by a third, from £9.5 million to £6 million, and I question whether that's a wise decision, and whether it's worth the risk and reputational damage for what is, in the grand scheme of things, a small amount.