I am pleased to present ‘Better Homes for People in Wales’, our consultation paper on proposals for a national housing strategy for Wales. The Assembly has committed itself significantly to improve the lives and opportunities of all people in Wales. ‘Better Homes for People in Wales’ is an important step towards delivering that commitment.

This paper is a practical example of a new, inclusive and consensual approach to policy development in Wales under the National Assembly. The paper follows the ‘Framework for a National Housing Strategy for Wales’, which we discussed in Plenary last year. It builds on the reports of the four housing strategy task groups, which were set up by Peter Law to develop the framework document into more detailed policy proposals for our consideration. The paper also takes on board relevant elements of the UK Government’s recent housing Green Paper.

I paid tribute to Peter Law, my predecessor in the Cabinet with responsibility for housing, for his work in this area. I place on record my tribute to him for the work he undertook. I also thank the many tenant representatives, housing agencies and professionals, and our other partners who have helped to develop the emerging strategy. In all, some 80 organisations contributed to this process through the work of the national consultative forum on housing and the housing strategy task groups.

The national housing strategy will embrace our three guiding themes of sustainable development, tackling social disadvantage and equality of opportunity. The most dramatic, visual examples of inequality among our people is poor or inadequate housing, or in the extreme, no housing at all. I was pleased to be able to increase funding for housing in my draft budget. This reversed the previous downward trend.

Over the next three years, we are providing £82 million to create sustainable and lasting solutions to the problems of up to 100 of our most deprived communities. At the forefront is our flagship programme Communities First. This is a long-term programme that will bring a community-led approach to tackling problems. It will link in with mainstream programmes for tackling deprivation.

One of our key successes in the programme for tackling deprivation is our Objective 1 programme. We will ensure that there is an integration of approach between Communities First and Objective 1, allowing the money for Communities First to be a form of match funding. Following further consultation on the key aspects of our approach, implementation of Communities First will begin in the summer of next year.

We all recognise the problems that we face with our housing in Wales. There is a backlog of essential repairs to council housing. There is poor energy efficiency and the related problems of fuel poverty. There is the poor condition of some of our older owner-occupied housing. There are the particular problems of the private rented sector, most serious of all in housing in multiple occupation.

These problems were largely inherited by the National Assembly. They were the legacy of many years where priorities lay elsewhere. The Assembly is committed to ensuring that our housing policies are properly integrated into our vision for a better Wales. We recognise the links between decent housing and our nation’s standards of health, academic achievement and support and care for the most vulnerable people in our society.

The most vulnerable are the homeless and those who sleep rough. We are determined to tackle the problem of homelessness and to ensure that no one in Wales needs to sleep rough. We are providing £3.6 million this year to enable local authorities to develop better local strategies to tackle homelessness, and to support improvements in the condition and management of housing in multiple occupation. This is on top of the £1.8 million budget for voluntary organisations working with the homeless. An additional £3.5 million over the next three years will support projects to help eliminate rough sleeping and reduce homelessness.

We are also taking forward the remit given to us by the National Assembly in June to bring forward legislation to extend the categories of homeless people in priority need. Subject to the approval of the National Assembly, the legislation should be in place by 1 March 2001.

Tackling the problems of homelessness and rough sleeping is a priority for us in the Assembly. I have therefore announced the setting up of a homelessness commission to investigate how we can best tackle these problems comprehensively and quickly. Peter Black will chair the commission. I have invited Gwenda Thomas and Kirsty Williams who are the Chairs of the Local Government and Housing Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee to be members, along with representatives of those organisations charged with dealing with homelessness in the field. I have asked the commission to report back to me by early summer next year.

An additional £40 million over the next three years will help local authorities to improve poor housing in the public and private sectors, with the emphasis on community regeneration. Many homeowners are elderly or disabled. We are determined that these people should receive the help and support that they need to live comfortably in their homes. We have provided additional resources this year to extend care and repair services to all parts of Wales. These services are invaluable in helping elderly and disabled people to remain in their own homes.

We will also undertake a review of the demand for housing for elderly people. This will consider the need for sheltered accommodation and the development of other forms of accommodation for the elderly. The review will also consider the impact that specially designed housing for elderly people can have on residential and nursing home provision. This project will run alongside the development of a comprehensive strategy for the elderly in Wales.

As part of our aim to ensure equality of opportunity in access to housing, we are also developing a specific strategy for meeting the housing needs of black and other minority ethnic groups. In October, I had the pleasure of addressing a successful conference on black and ethnic minority housing needs. This was a joint initiative between the Assembly and the Commission for Racial Equality. We are funding a feasibility study to look at the establishment of a black-led housing association in Wales. This study will also identify good practice and promote greater involvement of black and ethnic minority people within the management structures of social landlords. Involvement in the management structure is a key area.

Fuel poverty is also a central feature of social disadvantage. Some 220,000 homes in Wales lack either basic insulation or heating in their homes. We are providing an additional £6 million over the next three years to tackle fuel poverty through the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. This will extend the scheme to include 38,000 households by 2003. These are steps towards our target of meeting the needs of all fuel-poor households by 2010. I was delighted today to see so many Assembly Members at the National Energy Action launch today, which shows our commitment as an Assembly to this issue.

I will turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 1 is unacceptable. We need to balance the level of regulation with the need to ensure that construction pays due consideration to health and safety, quality and energy efficiency, where we have a statutory duty. I also bear in mind the Local Government and Housing Committee’s concerns regarding the standards on building sites.

I also ask you to reject amendment 2. This is a consultation document. In its preparation we have shown our commitment to listening, and it is important that people see that the Assembly supports this document.

It is entirely appropriate to support amendment 3, which includes all aspects of our policy.

Amendment 4 is also not acceptable. Capital funding is made available to local authorities on a non-specific basis and is unhypothecated. It is a matter for each local authority to determine the funding priorities. In view of the discussions we have heard on local democracy and local government, the Assembly should reject this amendment.

I am sorry that there are two points in amendment 5. The first point is a matter for primary legislation and we wholeheartedly support it in principle. We will seek to influence legislation to give this power to the Assembly. However, the second point has financial implications for us. The Treasury and the Department of Social Security may require assurance that we would find any net costs through increases in subsidy from Assembly budgets. I urge you to reject it.

Amendment 6 is unnecessary because adequate controls already exist.

Amendment 7 is not acceptable. We already acknowledge that there have been inadequate investment levels in health in previous years. I do not know what is meant by ‘housing repair allowances’. This could be the notional level of maintenance incorporated into the housing revenue account subsidy, or it could be a reference to renovation grants or capital for local authority stock.

Amendment 8 is not acceptable either, because it is not good value for money. It is important that any information obtained can be used to support decision-making or the development of policies at the appropriate level. Housing need is best established at a local level. We have been assisting local authorities to do this with funding at 50 per cent of the cost of undertaking a housing needs survey, and we will continue to do so.

We support amendment 9, but the Local Government and Housing Committee has taken a lead in this area. We will report back to the Committee on the responses received in May. No-one should think that that has not been ongoing. The Committee, under Peter Law, was fully involved in the consultation exercise. I support the amendment, but it is somewhat passé in real terms. I also support Jocelyn Davies’s amendment 10. It is important, because there is a reference to supporting changes to the housing benefit system in chapter 14. I do not support amendment 11, because we have already amalgamated the People in Communities and Sustainable Communities programmes into a new community purpose fund, which will also provide the expenditure for Communities First. It would be inappropriate for us to prescribe representation in connection with Communities First and, while representation for tenants is important, we must also look at the needs with a bottom-up approach within Communities First in this context.

Finally, there have been some misleading press reports about what we are not doing to meet the housing needs of rural communities, particularly housing-related Welsh language issues. As our consultation paper makes clear, we are committed to doing more to support, modernise and enhance rural life and rural communities. The Welsh language is a central feature of many of those communities.

A number of proposals in our consultation paper build on existing policies which already enable local authorities to take effective and appropriate action to protect and support our rural and Welsh-speaking communities. This action needs to be consistent with locally identified strategic needs and priorities. In July, we issued strengthened guidance to local authorities on taking account of the implications for the Welsh language in setting their planning policies. The guidance recognises the need to consider the impact of new development on existing communities. However, it is not our intention to introduce any element of discrimination between individuals, or to seek to control housing occupancy on linguistic grounds.

I am aware that the Rural White Paper for England is being published today. I intend, along with Sue Essex and Carwyn Jones, to look closely at what more we might do to ensure that people who live in our rural communities can get the housing which meets their needs. Our consultation paper invites views on this very issue.

I look forward to the debate today, to which Peter Black, as Deputy Minister for Local Government, will respond.

I also propose amendment 4. After ‘process of developing the emerging strategy’ insert as new clause:

I also propose amendment 6. After ‘care and repair services to all parts of Wales’ insert as new clause:

Any national housing strategy must address the history of housing development in Wales, in addition to meeting the aspirations of those who wish to live in our country. The present picture of housing in Wales illustrates several remarkable features: there are approximately 1,267,000 homes in Wales, of which 20 per cent are well over 100 years old, and 35 per cent are over 80 years old; local authority dwellings account for 15 per cent of those homes; and we have a high instance of owner-occupation, which amounts to approximately 72 per cent of homes.

In the last 40 years, the proportion of homes rented from local authorities has fallen from 24 per cent to 15 per cent. Over the same period, there has been a 28 per cent increase in the number of people in Wales who own their own homes. For each of those 40 years—almost half of the last century—the independent sector has built more homes than all the local authorities, new town corporations and registered social landlords in Wales combined. It is not possible, therefore, to develop a national housing strategy that fails to recognise the major provider of housing development in Wales. Amendment 1 addresses that fact.

If we are to see a continued raising of standards and improved quality in new homes, we must ensure that independent sector developments are not impeded by unnecessary regulations. That sector fully understands the competitiveness of its market, where people seek to improve living standards, and, therefore, it must respond with regard to quality, energy efficiency and design. Without this independent investment, any future strategy for housing in Wales would merely become a national care and repair housing strategy.

Our emphasis on, and recognition of, private sector development should not be interpreted as overlooking the needs of those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, or of those who seek rented accommodation or are homeless. One fact overshadows the history of housing provision in Wales: no other party has constructed more council housing than the Conservatives. Today, local authorities are able to allocate accommodation to homeless people, to asylum seekers—

Do you accept that no other party has done as much damage to council housing or has taken as much council housing out of council ownership as the Conservatives?

We are proud to have taken as much council housing out of local authority ownership.

Another legacy of Conservative Government initiative was the extra capital that local authorities received from the sale of council houses. This was used by many local authorities in Wales to reduce the enormous debt run-up by inefficient Labour-controlled councils, often via the direct labour organisations. The most telling fact concerning the commitment of Conservative Governments to funding local authority housing is that the total spending in Wales for 1996-97 was £193.3 million. Using the latest constant base figure, this Government’s spending amounts to £205.8 million. The Conservative Party spent more in its last year in office than is being spent by the present Government. Conservative Governments have always sought to encourage local authorities to provide the best services at the lowest possible cost to the ratepayer.

Local authorities’ failure to ensure the best services for all aspects of council responsibilities is addressed in amendment 4 and amendment 6. They seek to ensure that when local authorities initiate a project, the best management practices are used. In housing repair programmes, many precast reinforced concrete dwellings, which are in need of extensive repair, have been excluded from existing repair programmes. We support the transfer of housing stock to registered social landlords; in many local authorities, administration costs have spiralled out of control because the correct procedure was not followed.

With regard to PRC homes, I refer particularly to the communities of Ringwood Hill in Newport and Edgemoor Close in Swansea, which have been excluded from the programme. I was sorry to hear today that the Minister for Finance will not include them in the future. To ensure that oversights such as this are a thing of the past, we need an audit of housing stock that will not only describe the state of repair, but will record homes that have specific adaptations to allow them to be occupied by disabled dwellers.

The emphasis on, and recognition of, private sector development is important and should continue. We welcome the growth in housing associations, not only because they allow tenants to become members of the management board, encourage their participation in community housing development programmes and allow local people to determine solutions to local problems, but because they also allow opportunities for private capital investment to extend the development with low-cost loans.

I raise a point of order under Standing Order No. 4. I seek your ruling on whether people who are in receipt of earnings for rented properties should declare an interest in this debate.

Further to that point of order, if that will be your ruling, I declare an interest.

I also propose amendment 3. Add at the end of clause 2:

I also propose amendment 5. Add a new clause 5 and renumber accordingly:

I also propose amendment 7. In clause 5 delete everything after ‘draft budget’ and add:

I also propose amendment 8. Add as new clause 6 and renumber the remaining clauses accordingly:

I also propose amendment 9. At the end of the original clause 6 delete ‘to the National Assembly’ and add:

I also propose amendment 10. Add as new clause:

I also propose amendment 11. Add as new clause:

I welcome the draft national housing strategy. We should all thank the four task groups for the immense amount of work that they have done to lay its foundations, which included 195 recommendations. I look forward to the responses to the consultation.

A decent home for everybody is the bottom line of a civilised society. These homes should be dry, warm, have enough space, affordable and set in a safe, secure and accessible environment. Good housing reduces ill-health, and enables people to get the full benefit of education and employment, and to live where crime, and fear of crime, is not a constant background to daily life.

We are far from such an ideal in this country. Over 98,000 unfit homes—8.6 per cent of the housing stock—tell their own story. We are faced by a myriad of challenges: older houses in the Valleys where the population is moving out; neglected, sometimes crime-ridden, council estates, where, again, people are often moving out; unfit or locally unaffordable rural housing with problems of virtually inaccessible services and our language under threat; city centres where people fear to live, which has a knock-on effect on suburban sprawl, and black and ethnic minority people who are often provided with homes not suited to their lifestyles. Some people lack choice about where they live, because they do not have the means to buy into the private market. Only subsidised housing can provide those people with a decent home.

I realise that this subject can be a big turn-off. After all, if you are struggling to buy a home on a mortgage, why should you have to worry about those who cannot cope and, furthermore, why should you be taxed to help them? However, whether we are talking about the philosophies of paternalistic philanthropy, socialism, communism or the smudgy lilac of the third way, it is of benefit to everyone that decent housing be available to all. It reduces the costs of many other services and is important in achieving a stable community.

The draft housing strategy is the first attempt at a holistic view of housing in this country. It has many excellent features. The fact that this process is underway is a major step forward. I will pick out a few points only, as there are too many for me to discuss them all in the few minutes that I have. The strategy is strong in bringing many issues together and in integrating actions to prevent them working against each other. For example, the strategy refers to ensuring that tenure is not only affordable now but in the future. Strategies to reduce fuel poverty, money for care and repair and the widening of the categories of those who qualify as priority groups and those who can be considered homeless are all good features of the strategy. However, I register a protest that not one member of the main Assembly opposition will be on the homelessness commission. That is regrettable.

I will refer quickly to the homelessness commission. There is an anomaly in the report in paragraphs 3.6 and 13.1. One states that it will be established; the other that it has been established. That needs to be corrected.

Amendment 3 asks that our commitment to equality of opportunity and sustainable development be spelt out clearly in the strategy. No-one should oppose that. Amendment 10 asks that we make representations to the UK Government on the working of some of the present housing benefit system’s provisions. No-one could possibly be happy with it at present. Councils struggle to administer it and tenants and landlords suffer. The under-25s, in particular, are at the sharp end.

As I have said, there is much of value in this housing strategy. However, Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales sees a fundamental flaw in it, which we have tried to address in amendments 2 and 7. In our view, a housing strategy must be people-based, focusing on those who use the service and those who pay for it. The National Assembly for Wales has to operate within legal and fiscal constraints set by the UK Parliament. That is thrown into sharp relief in housing policy. The Government of Wales and the main opposition party in this Chamber both have a strong desire to establish good housing for all in strong communities. However, the Government of Wales is meekly working within the parameters and rules of the dreadful dinosaurs of the Treasury, which will not deliver for Wales. When Plaid Cymru is in government, we too will have to work within these rules, but we will not do so meekly.

I ask you to consider the rules and their effects. Housing investment is ruled by the need to keep the public sector borrowing requirement down and thus is inadequate. In every other European Union state, investment in housing is not counted against the public sector borrowing requirements or their equivalent. It is regarded as of value to that state. Why do we in the UK not adopt those better and more sensible fiscal rules? Furthermore, options for housing investment in Wales are moving towards transfer of council tax to, and new build by, registered social landlords, mainly housing associations, or private finance initiatives. These options mean that investment would come partly from borrowing on the private market. Is anyone saying that this is great for the taxpayers who can have their cake and eat it, but is not so good for the users, who lose democratic input through the ballot box and may pay higher rents? Remember that as housing associations grow bigger, their services become no better, or no worse, than those of local authorities. However, it is not great at all, because even the taxpayer does not do well out of these ideas and policies in the medium term. Repayments for PFIs are higher than for the same money borrowed by councils, which will still have to fund the revenue costs. Revenue costs that are greater than rents also come from public subsidy for housing associations. Higher rents equal higher housing benefits equal more money from the taxpayer. Who benefits from that?

Plaid Cymru is completely committed to a well-run welfare state, with a voice for the user. However, we do not support unnecessary extra costs. Members should remember that people who receive benefits pay indirect taxes, as well as everybody else.

Idiotic decisions have been taken in the past for dogmatic reasons. I would hate to see that happen again. I do not blame the Welsh Government for Treasury rules. However, I blame it for failing to explain these issues. I blame it for failing to point out that fiscal rules are old-fashioned and out of syncc with modern financial ideas, meaning that tenants and taxpayers get a bad deal in housing expenditure. I blame the Welsh Government for not standing up to the UK Government; not fighting our corner publicly and openly and concealing why our housing is unfit and inadequate. It does this because it is a part of the same political party as the UK Government and an election is looming.

I suspect that people are saying that Plaid Cymru is whingeing again. I am proud to be a whinger for Wales. I do not apologise for it. I would rather be a whinger for Wales than a scrounger for somebody else.

Plaid Cymru can only note the draft document and cannot endorse it. We call for recognition of the chronic lack of public money investment. That is honest, open and above board.

I warmly welcome this strategy, as it is a major step forward. Housing organisations and people working in housing in Wales have waited for this for a long time. It is disappointing that Plaid Cymru has to be so nit-picking and insist on noting the strategy rather than endorsing it, when so many organisations and individuals have put much time into developing it and it will now go out to consultation. It is disappointing that, throughout this process of creating a system that involves and engages people, Plaid Cymru repeatedly refuses to co-operate and support the comments that people make to us.

There are many subjects for discussion in this full and comprehensive document. It is important, as it gives housing a status for the first time. For far too long, housing has been the Cinderella of the public services. I am old enough to have been engaged in campaigns in the 1970s and the 1980s for the right to a home. Those were the days when we believed that it was possible to give the same status to the right to decent housing as existed for the right to education and the right to the health service.

I am delighted that Alun wants to intervene, as it was his Government that finally made it clear to us that we were wasting our time. However, I am glad to see that we now have the opportunity to start all over again.

During your campaigns in the 1970s for the right to housing and so on, did you have a campaign to support the right to buy, which was so successfully introduced by the Conservative Party?

No, we did not have a campaign to support the right to buy. However, Alun has neatly taken me on to the future of council housing—one of the two aspects of this report that I want to discuss. I heard Janet’s comments on the problems caused by the current constraints on the public sector borrowing requirement. However, it is important that this document takes a measured approach to our options for safeguarding the future of the housing stock and considering improvements to it.

I remember, Alun, during the 1980s when council tenants were frightened by the Conservative Government’s policy of trying to make private landlords buy council houses. This forced the tenants into feeling that they had no security unless they bought their houses. It is tragic that, last week, someone came into my surgery to say exactly the same thing. That person feared that we were going down the same road, looking to transfer all of our housing stock. I am pleased that we are taking a measured approach and that we will consider a range of options. I am also pleased that, at this stage, we are only prepared to transfer small amounts of housing, where there is a clear need and absolute, rock-solid tenant support.

I am sure that Val has read the report. She will therefore be aware of the section within it that clearly states that 87 per cent of the population would like to own their own home within the next 10 years. Why does Val feel that those people should be denied that right? Why does she condemn the previous Government, which did so much to give those people the right to which they aspire, while she opposed it?

While your Government was in power, I worked for 10 years with homeless people and with people who lived in bad housing. Time and time again, I saw them buy houses that they could not afford because they felt that they had no security any other way and because your Government stopped all investment in council housing. In my constituency, 27 per cent of households still live in council housing. In spite of what you did, many people remained in council housing. We owe them a debt to find a way of improving those homes and to give them decent living conditions. I am confident that this strategy gives us the basis on which to do that.

I will now talk briefly about homelessness, which I have always been, and continue to be, extremely concerned about. I welcome the move to consider new categories of homelessness. When doing this, I ask Edwina, through the homelessness commission, to consider other issues surrounding homelessness legislation, especially the rules on intentionality, where people who make mistakes in their lives can be banned from secure housing for many years. Wales could strike out alone on that issue.

I also want to ask Edwina to consider whether supported housing resettlement grants could be made available to voluntary organisations when they support tenants in council housing as well as in housing association properties. I have raised this issue previously, but it is particularly important in the context of the homelessness strategy. It makes no sense to have empty council houses, people in hostels wanting to move on and voluntary organisations not being able to support them because the rules preclude that.

Finally, and most importantly in some ways, the one omission in this document relates to women fleeing domestic violence. I note the new strategy on housing people from black and ethnic minorities, which is important. However, it is also important that we implement strategies to help Women’s Aid and organisations providing temporary accommodation that subsequently need secure accommodation into which families that have been uprooted and often severely damaged by violent homes can settle. I ask Edwina to consider that in the next stage of the consultation.

This is an important step forward. We are only able to do it because of devolution and the ability that this Assembly gives us to engage with people outside. Finally, we have the chance to turn around the damage of those 18 years when housing was so dramatically destroyed in Wales.

I support all of William Graham’s amendments, and will speak briefly on amendment 4 and amendment 1. Amendment 4 relates to the rights of owners of precast reinforced concrete homes. William mentioned the residents of Edgemoor Close in Killay, Swansea. They live in Cornish-type mark one properties which were designated defective under the 1985 Housing Act. Unfortunately, repairs to those properties were completed by the direct labour organisation of Swansea City and County Council. Although the repairs appear to have been conducted in the right way, because the repairers were unlicensed these residents are being prevented from using their right to buy their own homes, a right which was given to them so successfully under the last Conservative Government. As a result of the local Labour-controlled authority’s actions, these people are being denied their right to buy. I regret that the Government of Wales is not supporting amendment 4 today.

Amendment 2 relates to private investment. The Government is obviously confused. On the one hand, last week, we saw a split in the Labour ranks on the Lib-Lab pact. Some supported the private finance initiative: others did not. We heard on the news today about the discussions in another place, where private money is considered useful for the privatisation of air-traffic control and is an excellent way to secure further investment in air safety. Why is it not appropriate today, therefore? Is it because of the policies of envy that are preached by the parties opposite? Is it because of the point that Val Feld tried to highlight, denying people the right to own their own homes and the right to provide for their families and for future generations?

I want to address the specific area of housing benefits and the role and obligations of local authorities. It is sad but true that housing benefit and the council tax benefit system are in disarray in some counties. It is not good enough for local authorities to plead new computer systems or government legislation as an excuse for not processing thousands of claims in time and jeopardising the roofs over people’s heads.

The principle of helping people on benefits and low income to pay their rent is a sound one. In fact, it is essential. It allows pensioners, working families and single people a choice in the housing market and ensures the variety of lifestyles in our communities.

We have all been aware that, like any system, the housing benefit system can be subject to abuse, and safeguards must be put in place to prevent this. However, these safeguards must not impede the processing of legitimate claims, and should not cause hardship and stress to claimants. Neither should they be an excuse for months of backlog, which is the case at present in one of the local authorities in my constituency.

There is a system of security checks for all benefits, and that is quite proper, but to plead complications of legislature as an excuse to leave thousands of people with no weekly benefits would cause utter chaos and have benefits offices across the country besieged. Not so with housing benefit. Non-payment of this benefit is often slow to cause problems. A private landlord may pressurise a client once arrears start to accrue. If payment is direct, it may be months before a claimant is approached—this is the case sometimes—and it could also be used as a method of repossessing a property on mandatory grounds of three months’ rent arrears, and that is also a cause of concern. In one local authority in my constituency, I have heard of council tenants—and have worked with tenants—who have been taken to court for repossession on the grounds of arrears which should have been paid by the council’s own benefits department.

Anyone who has attended a repossession hearing in a county court would agree that this is a traumatic experience for tenants and their families, who invariably, even if repossession is not granted, have local authority costs added to their arrears. This system of means testing makes no allowance for claimants to top up their rent until housing benefit comes through. Sixty five per cent of their income above benefits level is taken towards their rent. These allowances are low, and in the cases of those in receipt of benefit there is no spare income at all.

I am currently dealing with a case in my constituency of a pensioner couple who are waiting for their claim to be processed and are topping up their rent to a housing association from the wife’s disability living allowance, which is payable because she is confined to a wheelchair. Housing benefit and council tax benefit rules are complicated. The means testing system must rely on eligibility and income proof, but the great majority of cases are straightforward. The maths is simple, and thousands of claims are six-month renewals with no change in circumstances for claimants who may have been living in the same property for years. This is an additional burden of work that is unnecessary in many cases.

We have all heard stories of failing computer systems in the private as well as in the public sector. But have we ever heard of banks saying: ‘sorry you cannot have your salary this month because we have a new computer system’? Has anyone ever been in a supermarket and been asked to put their shopping back because they have a new computer system? My own authority has produced figures showing that, in January 2000, claims outstanding were 4,772. By September, after the introduction of the ubiquitous new computer system, outstanding claims were 7,436. My sympathy and support goes out to the hard-pressed staff of the local authorities dealing with phone calls, letters and personal callers, as well as trying to process the claims. They need our support. They need regional offices where straightforward claims can be processed in a day. They need decent, adaptable computer systems that are reliable and that produce intelligible information for them and for the claimants. They also need to be able to process claims within the statutory two weeks, because there are many people who do not realise that they could be taking their local authorities to court over this.

Like many others, I welcome today’s debate and the housing strategy. The way in which it has been drawn up and the inclusion of many groups should be commended. However, the task group’s recommendations, while being far-reaching and comprehensive, have been somewhat watered down in the final strategy, which is a shame.

I will look at one of those recommendations in particular: a recommendation from task group 1. The strategy is rather confused on this point to say the least. While the Minister has today said that she will reject Jocelyn Davies’s amendment 8, which calls for a national audit of housing need, the document states that the Government is committed to a housing audit, and to a household interview survey. Amendment 8 seeks to underline the importance of this audit, and to have it included in the motion. The information gained from a national audit of housing need is crucial to enable local authorities to plan and develop their unitary development plans. It would show the changing geographical need in housing. Instead of using the argument that because there are several empty properties in a certain area, there is no real need for new social housing to be built, a comprehensive housing survey would enable councils to tie the need for housing into future development. At present, without the ability to assess or predict housing need, it is impossible to successfully meet the demand. Local provision must be tied to local need.

On the regeneration of communities, there are so many different yet similar initiatives, that there is much confusion and duplication of work and effort. As the Minister has said, the aim of Communities First was to draw the community regeneration money together in one pocket, creating one regeneration project that would allow communities to identify and meet their needs without having to negotiate the funding maze that currently exists. This is the basis of Jocelyn Davies’s amendment 11. I note what the Minister has said today that Communities First can be used as match funding for Objective 1. While that may be so in areas included in the Objective 1 map, there are many areas outside of that in Wales who are also looking forward to this initiative.

I echo Janet Davies’s earlier points about funding. The Local Government and Housing Committee last Thursday took evidence from a number of different housing groups. Each group stressed that the best way to fund the backlog of repairs in Wales would be for the Chancellor to change the public sector borrowing requirements and allow councils to borrow. Plaid Cymru thinks that it is now vital that the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities leads a delegation to Westminster to put forward this case for Wales.

I would like the Minister to clarify in her closing speech what exactly is meant by the White Paper on housing that is mentioned in the partnership agreement. Has that idea been scrapped, will there be a further debate or is our debate today on the so-called White Paper on housing? Finally, Peter Law did a good job in keeping the Committee informed, but we would like to ensure that, as this strategy develops, the Committee receives regular reports on its progress.

First, I want to refer to paragraph 12.4.4, the Welsh response to the Royal Commission on long-term care. I welcome the proposal to establish a task group supported by smaller groups looking at detailed issues. One of those issues must be an assessment criterion in respect of disablement facilities grants. This issue is not confined to the elderly, but involves disabled people of all ages. A housing strategy must include the ability to fast-track urgent adaptations where the onset of disability is sudden. Minor adaptations such as ramps, hand rails and chair lifts, which aid rehabilitation, would help carers and facilitate caring within the community.

I will add to what Val said about women fleeing violence. The strategy should also include issuing guidelines to local authorities on policies to deal with some cases of rent arrears, in particular arrears that are outstanding when one party, most often the man leaves a woman to bring up children and the arrears become that mother’s responsibility although the tenancy was jointly held. The existence of these arrears often prohibit a transfer of tenancy for the mother when a house move could offer her and her children added protection against violence. I understand that local authorities can exercise discretion at the moment.

Amendment 9 in the name of Jocelyn Davies is not necessary because, as the Minister has already mentioned, the Local Government and Housing Committee has been closely involved at every stage of the work on drawing up the strategy. It is fitting that the work of Peter Law is recognised. On 21 July 1999, the Committee considered a framework for a national housing strategy. On 27 January 2000, the interim reports of the four independent task groups on the national housing strategy were considered by the Committee. On 18 May 2000, the Committee considered the final reports of the four independent task groups on the national housing strategy. I add my thanks to these groups for their work. On 15 November 2000, a draft consultation paper on the national housing strategy was again considered by the Committee. On 15 November, the Committee meeting decided that the development of the strategy, which has involved tenant representatives, housing agencies and professionals, local government and others, represents an outstanding example of a new, inclusive and consensual approach to policy development.

The Local Government and Housing Committee will continue to take a close interest in the development of the strategy. It is already planning to consider the results of the consultation as soon as possible after the completion of the exercise. This will probably be at its first meeting of the summer session in early May, which would fall within the six-month timescale mentioned in amendment 9.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. I served on the Local Government and Housing Committee for many months. First, I will refer to section 8.2, in the light of comments by an earlier speaker about the previous Government. Members should be aware that this report makes it absolutely clear that the vast majority of people in Wales would like to own their houses. As a result of the proud record of the previous Conservative Government, over 72 per cent of them do. I am concerned that there is a somewhat patronising attitude among certain sections of society, that those who are currently in council houses should in some way be denied the opportunity to buy their own homes because we are told that they might not be able to make the right financial decisions for themselves. I do not accept that. Everybody, whatever their station in society, has the right to aspire to home ownership. We should not stand back and think that because we perhaps have better paid jobs, we know better than they do what is best for them. People know what is best for themselves. While some people will remain in council housing, it is a delight to see that at last this Government has accepted the important role that PFI has to play in improving the conditions of those who are currently in some form of social housing. The Labour Party in opposition criticised PFI. However, there is nothing like a sinner who repents and I am delighted that PFI is given an important role here.

I am concerned about comments in this report about the private rented sector. I would like to say, just in case Brian Gibbons is thinking of getting up, that some years ago I rented out a room in my own house. I say that in the interest of clarity. It is vital that we have a strong private rented sector. Some people will move around a lot because of work, or they may be young or are not able to get onto the property ladder as soon as they wish. That is why we need a private rented sector.

The previous Government freed up many of the restrictions that held people back from renting out houses, whether it was houses that they owned as second homes or rooms within homes that they owned. I would be concerned about any proposal to bring in an extra legislation or restrictions on landlords. When I rented out a room in a house, I had to supply a special certificate showing that the central heating was safe, otherwise I would not have been able to do so. That was fair and adequate. Any further forms of licensing could undermine what we are trying to achieve, which is the largest number of homes possible in the rented sector.

Are you aware, David, that the worst housing conditions are in the private rented sector? Many people are killed in fires in the private rented sector. There has been a big campaign for many years to have a registration scheme and to take a firm hold of standards in that sector. Are you also aware that the loosening of restrictions that your Government introduced, against a lot of advice, has led to a vast expansion of the private sector? A senior housing officer in Swansea told me in a telephone conversation early this morning that he thought that the new census—as long as people fill it in—will demonstrate the extent of the expansion of the private rented sector areas into areas that have previously been stable owner-occupied housing areas.

People should not have to tolerate dangerous housing. However, if we bring in so many restrictions that people are not prepared to rent out their houses under any circumstances, you will fail in your objective to ensure that homes are available for people so that they do not end up on the street.

I want to raise some specific concerns in the report. Section 11.7 deals with restrictions on so-called cowboy builders. That is certainly a problem but, as the report emphasises, the biggest reason why there are so many cowboy builders is because of the current tax regime. Nobody is suggesting that the tax regime should be altered, which is a great shame.

I will now turn to section 12.2 on equality. The report mentions that councils are now able to evict people who harass their neighbours on racial grounds. I think that is an excellent point, and I fully support it. It is long overdue and I am surprised that the Minister has not made more of it. At the same time, I have a concern about black and ethnic minority housing associations. Obviously, we should ensure that all people, whatever their background and skin colour, have an input into housing policy. However, I do not believe in any form of discrimination, whether positive or negative. I hope that the Minister can assure me that people will not be prevented from getting houses because of their skin colour whether that be white, black or anything else.

On section 13.3 on giving statutory help to certain groups of people, the groups mentioned are homeless people aged 16 to 18, care leavers, prisoners, personnel leaving the armed forces with nowhere else to stay, and women fleeing from violence. I have no problem with supporting the idea of providing more statutory help for care leavers and for those leaving the armed forces. However, I am concerned about giving preferential treatment to prisoners. Anyone who has broken the law of the land should be punished and when they are released from prison, they should accept that they will not be entitled to any additional help simply because they have broken the law. To give additional help would send out a negative message.

I am open-minded on the other two issues, but I would like the Minister to clarify my concerns. Many homeless people aged 16 to 18 have problems getting on with their parents, and perhaps I should declare an interest here because I was no different at that age; I was a bit of a rascal. [Laughter.] I make a serious point. If we make it too easy for people of that age to leave the parental home and access all sorts of benefits, we will be eating into the slice of the cake that provides for other people who may be more in need of that help. On women—

I am sure that you would not have to walk far from this building to find young people prostituting themselves because they cannot claim housing benefit, and I am sure that you would agree that the homes from which they came are a little bit more miserable than the home from which you came.

I agree with you on both points, but help is available for people in that situation. The answer is not to hand over large sums of money to people aged between 16 and 18 and allow them to get on with it. People of that age need supervision; they do not need to be encouraged to leave the parental home by giving them access to larger sums of money.

I fully accept that women fleeing from violence need all the help that they can get. My only concern is that I have met men in my constituency who have been involved in relationship breakdowns, and in the case of one man, I believe that false allegations were made against him. We must be careful that we do not make it easy for somebody to make a false allegation of violence in order to get housing. I am not saying that that happens a great deal. I am not trying to suggest for one minute that the majority of allegations of violence are not genuine, but it can happen.

Perhaps my memory serves me wrong, but having said all that, can you explain why, in April or June of this year, you voted for a redefinition of homelessness?

As you know, the Welsh Conservatives will support much of what is said today. However, I raise specific concerns in a report that consists of more than 100 pages. If I were not prepared to vote in favour of certain things, you would be the first person to jump up and criticise me.

Can I just—

I will not give way. I make one final positive point on mediation, which is an excellent service. I have visited the Monmouthshire mediation group and it has been helpful in relation to certain constituency cases. If it does not sound too patronising, I suggest that all Members visit mediation groups in their constituencies and that they use them, particularly for disputes between neighbours. The two issues that the mediation groups raise time and time again with me are that they need longer-term funding, preferably three-year funding, and that we need to look at these mediation groups over wider areas rather than only having them sporadically based in different parts of the country. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns. I support William Graham’s amendments and I look forward to hearing the response.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. As Members have said, it is everybody’s right to a decent, affordable, secure home that is warm, dry and in which everybody can feel safe. Every Assembly Member could recall horror stories from their own constituencies.

I turn to the private rented sector. I am sorry, David, that I do not share your views but you would not expect me to. I have a caring nature and I believe that people have a right, if they are paying a rent, to have space, warmth, hot water and certainly cold running water that is clean. That is not the case in some of the tenancies from private landlords in my constituency.

I will prefix the rest of my remarks by saying that we have some good landlords and landladies in my constituency. Unfortunately, good ones are outweighed by the bad ones. As a result, I will talk about strengthening the role of the housing benefit agency when it considers where and how it pays benefit. Landlords and landladies should not be allowed to collect the benefit on behalf of some poor tenant who does not know which area to go to and who is taken by the hand by the landlord to the benefits department and assisted in filling the forms so that the landlord can collect the money. These landlords are picking up quite a lot of money and putting nothing back into their property. These houses are being allowed to go into disrepair and neglect, and to become an eyesore. Furthermore, they are a health hazard. Unfortunately, because local authorities’ housing departments are under-resourced they cannot go out and check all these premises. The environmental health inspectors do their utmost, but unfortunately we have a problem whereby landlords who are absent from the premises, or who are absent from the towns in which these premises are occupied, are those that we cannot track down and we cannot demand that they make good those defects.

I welcome the Government’s Green Paper, ‘Quality and choice: a decent home for all’, which will hopefully bring forward a licensing system to improve the standards in housing in multiple occupancy. I want to see the prevention of deaths from fires in multiple occupancy houses. That is easily done if everybody has access to proper electricity or gas supplies and are not forced to try to bypass the meter or are cut off and have to use candles, which can be dangerous at any time of year. Far more people’s lives are put at risk in a house in multiple occupancy that does not have proper fire precautions.

I welcome the fitness rating to aid enforcement action on unsafe homes, which is another policy from the Green Paper. We need to ensure that existing powers are fully utilised and that the proposed registration schemes are taken up. These incentives for good practice by private landlords will be welcomed by good landlords who will come on board with the registration scheme and the licensing scheme. Good landlords have nothing to fear. The only people who have things to fear are the bad landlords who are putting hundreds of pounds in their back pockets at the blight of their tenants who are living in abject poverty and misery. I hope that this Government and this Assembly will do all they can to ensure that everybody has a right to a decent home.

I declare an interest as a member of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. The proposals in the strategy are comprehensive and there is much to commend. My authority, Rhondda Cynon Taff, has embraced many other proposals with regard to the house condition survey and the needs survey, which help to target resources where they are most needed. The emphasis on partnership is also important in working with tenants to solve problems. A good example is the Mount Libanus estate in Treherbert, a problem estate where we have been working with the tenants to solve their problems. There is a similar arrangement in Penrhys. We are also looking forward to working with the mediation service, which is so important in sorting out problems between tenants and others.

Housing is a major problem. It is a major problem in my constituency, where 12 per cent of the housing is unfit. It is nice to see that the Government realises the importance of housing and the link with ill-health. Poor housing and illness go together. Unfortunately, housing finance and the resources for tackling housing problems have not had the priority they deserve. If we look at the figures on the amount spent on public sector housing, £288 million was spent in 1990-91, and last year a mere £211 million. This is not at all satisfactory. The amount spent on each individual house has decreased from £1,300 to £1,100.

We are not just talking about bricks and mortar, we are talking about rejuvenating and regenerating communities. We welcome the Communities First initiative. Unfortunately, as the proposals stand at the moment, the plans are to assist the 100 most deprived communities in Wales. Up to five will be selected from each local authority area. This appears to be a sound plan on the face of it, but is does not take into account the fact that some areas are in a worse position than others. For example, Rhondda Cynon Taff, my own authority, has 17 in the top 100 most deprived wards, and 10 in the top 40. Monmouthshire, on the other hand, has none in the top 100, but if the present proposals are adopted, wards in Monmouthshire will have priority over more deprived wards—

No.

What he says is wrong.

The proposal is obviously unfair and must be changed.

I must admit that when I was reading the document I got somewhat excited by this new major repairs allowance; we thought that this was new money. Unfortunately, that is not the case. All it does is reapportion existing money in the housing revenue account. If that is set at the higher level in Wales there will be less money for grants and area renewal.

The document suggests that the major repair allowance should be used for private funding initiative schemes in housing,

‘where there was a need to undertake a significant amount of major repairs work quickly.’

I emphasise the word ‘quickly’. Whatever the virtues of PFI, my experience is that speed is not one of them. It takes years and years to get a PFI scheme off the ground, and it is essential that we tackle the problems on our estates by tackling them quickly because deterioration sets in at speed.

I cannot understand why the Labour Party embraces PFI. It is a poor deal for councils; they will be paying through the nose and they will be mortgaging their future. What we really need is more funding for local authorities, who know where the needs are in their communities. They are the best people to spend that money.

A great concern in the south Wales valleys—

I note your comments regarding PFI. Could you confirm that Rhondda Cynon Taff and other authorities like Caerphilly are moving ahead with PFI projects?

We did not have any choice. We would much rather have gone along the conventional route, but unfortunately because we do not get adequate funding from central Government, that is the only choice we had. This is a condemnation of the way that the administration in Wales and in London treats local authorities.

I stress that there is a need for housing renovation grants and draw attention to the difficulties in which people find themselves. People wait five or six years for these grants. At present, Rhondda Cynon Taff is not dealing with new applications. Our funding has fallen from £14 million to £9 million this year. Some people are afraid to call in their environmental health officer in case their house is condemned. Those are the conditions in which people are living. We need more investment in housing renovation grants.

I am pleased that you support amendment 10 on housing benefit. The system needs to be reformed because it is too bureaucratic. I fail to understand why somebody is penalised and singled out for discriminatory treatment for being under 25. It is essential that we remove the access grant from housing benefit calculations. We talk about ensuring equal opportunities for education, but those are empty words unless we ensure that those who receive housing benefits are not penalised because they have an access grant. When the access grant is deducted from the housing benefit, their financial situation remains exactly the same.

I also stress the need to review the ceiling for housing benefits. If the ceiling on housing benefit does not allow people to have decent accommodation without taking from other necessities, we are failing our constituents. It is everyone’s right to have a decent home. For too long, housing has not had priority in public spending. We need more money and it must be better targeted to create communities of which we can be proud.

It was interesting for me, coming from Blaenau Gwent, to listen to some of the Conservative comments this afternoon. Conservative amendments are always good entertainment in this Chamber, as we know. Most of the time, they are hollow words that are used to try to cover the shortcomings of previous Conservative administrations in Wales, which have caused the problems that we are trying to remedy by legislation. That is again the case this afternoon. When I heard David Davies speaking, I was reminded of that saying ‘they are not all locked up yet’. When you hear the positively discriminatory—

I certainly have not been locked up. What about the members of the County Borough of Blaenau Gwent? Twenty of them are either in their way to court or on their way back from being locked up.

Do not worry about the members of Blaenau Gwent —

Do not worry about the members of Blaenau Gwent, just worry about the people of Blaenau Gwent and other areas in deprived communities throughout Wales, of whom the Conservative Government successively took advantage and forgot about. When did you begin to recognise homelessness? That is a question that went through my mind this afternoon when I heard William Graham speaking so eloquently. Until May 1997, there was no homelessness in Wales. That is what Conservative Ministers used to say. We know the truth and this document addresses that.

I return to what David Davies said earlier. It was disgraceful that he made such discriminatory remarks about young people, private tenants and ex-prisoners who need help and compassion. The only thing that he had left to say was ‘burn them’. That is the approach of the Conservative Party towards vulnerable elements of our community.

This document is a beacon of commitment to the people of Wales, and I compliment the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities for bringing it forward this afternoon. I join in the congratulations that have been expressed to the people who worked on the task groups and the national housing consultative council, who have made the difference in bringing us this document. This document has not been drawn up by Ministers or the civil service. Many people have given of their time to have a positive input into the way forward in Wales. It is unique in that respect and it is something of which we can be proud. When people ask what the National Assembly is achieving, I say that this is a signal document for the future of Wales, as we are doing things differently in Wales to any other part of the UK.

I warmly congratulate those groups, which included tenants, landlords, mortgage lenders, the homeless, local authorities and housing associations. All those people played their part and gave of their time to give us the document we have before us today. It may not to be everyone’s liking; we can all nit-pick. However, it is a definitive, major strategy document that takes us forward positively for the benefit of the people of Wales and their housing needs in the millennium.

Coming from Blaenau Gwent, where there are so many properties in need of renovation and so many people living in poverty and social deprivation, I welcome this document. There are many housing estates in my constituency, as there are in those of other Members, that were built on the top of mountains, 1,350 feet above sea level. We have discovered that those communities are not sustainable and we are reaping the harvest of that poor investment now. In many communities, demolition is taking place because those communities are not sustainable. We never want to make that mistake again. We must ensure that we build sustainable communities where people want to live and can enjoy high quality social housing and decent homes in a safe, pleasant and healthy environment. That is what this document is about. It is important for all the people of Wales and I welcome it on behalf of my constituency, where there are many problems to solve.

The strategy refers to care and repair and the excellent work that the Government is doing on that. Care and repair services have now been extended to all of Wales and exist in each of the 22 local authority areas. I welcome that. Care and repair services are working hard to target the more vulnerable groups of society, such as the elderly and disabled. That must be good. We must sustain that and ensure that funding is fully available. We must consider increasing funding for housing development and renovation, which the Minister has promised us, because we know that we need to tackle that issue decisively. This document gives a basis on which to do that positively.

This strategy also offers us the opportunity to deal once and for all with homelessness by establishing a homelessness commission. I welcome that, because it is so important. I spoke earlier about the fact that previous Conservative Governments denied the existence of homelessness. We have brought the issue into the spotlight and have said that it is not a taboo, it exists and must be dealt with and eradicated. We are committed to that. I cannot think of a better gesture to come from the sin bin on the right-hand side of the Chamber, than if all the Conservative Members were to attend the rough sleep-out on 8 December at the back of Marks and Spencer—preferably without sleeping bags, in their case—so that they can appreciate how difficult life is for homeless people in Cardiff and the work that we must do.

Is the Member aware that in answer to a written parliamentary question, a previous Labour Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction admitted that homelessness had increased since Labour was elected as the Government in Westminster?

Homelessness has not increased in Wales since Labour was elected, as far as I know. I know, from my experience in my former post, that the Government of Wales has committed itself totally to eradicating homeless. Today, you have heard the Minister mention that this Assembly has made £3.6 million available to deal with social deprivation this year. There will be £3.5 million available over the next three years and £1.8 million was allocated to voluntary organisations to assist in their good work in the community. I pay tribute to all those organisations and the night shelters in Rhyl, Wrexham, Swansea, Cardiff and Newport. They all make a difference in trying to give these poor people a safe environment and in showing the compassion that the Assembly is about.

As well as the commitment on homelessness, we have a commitment in the strategy to community regeneration. The flagship investment of £82 million over the next three years, to which the Minister referred, will undoubtedly make a difference.

I have only had seven minutes, but I will wind up.

I will wind up. However, that £82 million will make a difference in the communities, where we need to see that money spent. All in all, this document is to be welcomed. It provides us with a strong future in terms of housing. I know that the people of Wales will benefit greatly from it.

I will begin by talking about Care and Repair Cymru, I warmly welcome that fact that this service is now available throughout Wales. I tried to help my grandparents to modernise a bathroom in a local authority area that did not provide this service and it was exceedingly difficult. I was director of a leading charity at the time, which was active in this field, and if someone who knows the social care system can encounter such difficulties, I think that all Members will be aware of the problems faced by elderly, ill and disabled people out there who need help.

On disabled facilities grants, much of our housing is ill-suited for use by anyone who is not a fit 35-year old or better. Bathrooms have deep baths and no showers and houses have narrow stairs and steps in inappropriate places. All those things can cause great difficulty to people in their homes and outside. For example, getting over a step by installing a ramp to your front door can take years to finance through the current disabled facilities grants scheme. I am not apportioning blame, because if I were, we would have to go back well into the life of the previous Government. It comes down to a lack of funding. There is currently a long waiting list because there is not enough funding, and not because there is a lack of assessment and need. People’s needs are identified quickly, but they then have to wait a long time for modifications to be made, which is an unsatisfactory process.

The motor neurone disease society recently hosted a function in the Assembly. Many of its sufferers are given a life expectancy prognosis of 14 to 18 months and they often die before their houses are modified. That response is wholly inadequate and we need to be more flexible and generous in this area of public policy. Carers can encounter difficulties in getting reliable hoists fitted. If they do not, they suffer intense back problems quickly. Such things add to quality of life, not only through their provision, but because they are reliable and installed quickly. We should not leave people unsupported in their homes if we know that when the social worker visits and those facilities are not provided, injury and misery is the likely result.

The need for good design on new buildings must be stressed. We have not discussed design in this debate, but in Wales, the Assembly—as an add-on value—could get excellent design of public buildings from the people that we use to provide infrastructure. That will stop many problems for future generations. My grandparents lived in a purpose built bungalow for elderly people and their bathroom was wholly inadequate for anyone who was not fully fit. That is not a good way of designing houses, which could have been anticipated in the past.

On the contribution of my friend David Davies, he sometimes paints his pictures in very bright, vivid colours, which I find something of a naïve art form at times, but who am I to pass an aesthetic judgment. However, as the spokesman—

I fully accept that you might not want to pass an aesthetic judgment on David Davies and I will join you in your reluctance to do so, but I wonder whether you would pass an ethical judgment on his comments on young people and the likelihood of women who have been subjected to domestic violence making false allegations?

I thank the Member for her intervention, but as the Chair of the Committee on Standards of Conduct, I will avoid that particular elephant trap.

I make it clear that the Welsh Conservative Party is happy to consider the policy of black and ethnic minority led housing associations and discuss the fact that people from minorities want to live in a secure environment with little or hopefully no harassment. Yesterday, I witnessed a case of racial harassment of a young Pakistani mother. Someone passed her, and whispered, but I heard it clearly: it was something perfectly disgusting to her. We cannot ignore that racial harassment occurs out there. It is not a matter of making special provision by giving people priority that they do not deserve, it is trying to get over some of the barriers that they inevitably face, because, sadly, our society is far from perfect. That is what affirmative action is about, it is not special pleading.

Does David agree that that sort of behaviour is perfectly disgraceful? I say this as someone who has a close relationship with a member of an ethnic minority. Do you agree that the answer and the solution for dealing with that kind of unacceptable behaviour is not to treat one group differently from another group regardless of the colour of their skin?

There are times when we must accept that, alas, certain people in the community face particular problems for no other reason than that they have different colour skin or have some other difference that people perceive as the basis for ridicule, harassment and violent comment.

David also remarked on how we should or should not support offenders. I believe passionately that prison is the punishment, and if people are not given support when they leave prison, then you are inviting a high recidivist rate, which has a dramatic effect on crime in communities, such as burglary. It is a tough line to take sometimes, to say to people that we will ensure that offenders are given a level of support. It does not mean that we condone their former behaviour, but it does mean that we are trying to support them in a more productive line of behaviour. It is important that we address such issues.

Finally, I assure Peter Law that I will be supporting the rough sleep-out—

You did so last year.

Yes, I did. The Welsh Conservative Party will also be supporting the sleep-out by generously sponsoring me in my sleep-in, because I will go there, sing the carols, wish everyone who is sleeping outside good luck, and then race home to a warm bed. I will at least pay for the privilege.

It is invariably a pleasure to listen to David Melding’s contributions in the Chamber. Whether he can say the same for other Members of his group is another matter. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Housing has slipped down the political agenda in recent decades. Health, education and employment attract the headlines nowadays, yet housing is crucial to all three. If you live in substandard accommodation, or do not have a roof over your head at all, the chances of enjoying good health, attaining appropriate qualifications, or being employed in a rewarding job, or indeed any job, range from minimal to nil.

There are myriad different aspects to housing, many of which have already been covered. I will focus on homelessness, and flag up some of the concerns of people who work with the homeless in Pembrokeshire. I pay tribute to the work of Pembrokeshire Action for the Single Homeless—PASH. One of the big problems in Pembrokeshire is that most people living in the county, as well as people living outside the county, do not consider that such a rural county has a homeless problem at all, just because they cannot see people sleeping in doorways. The number of enquiries that PASH receives proves otherwise, with over 1,500 visits to its office last year.

Another big problem is how the regulations governing housing benefit payments inhibit the ability of homeless persons to find and to pay for housing. The Assembly needs to influence Westminster as much as possible to ensure that housing benefits policy supports our over-arching aims of social inclusion, sustainable development and equality of opportunity. Fixed period awards are to be welcomed, the earnings disregard needs to be increased, and the single room rent should be abolished and not modified. I support Shelter Cymru’s call for a unified housing costs scheme to assist both low-income tenants and homeowners.

Then there are the difficulties of receiving benefit entitlement when you have no contact address, the dangers that lurk on the streets for the young and the vulnerable and the difficulties of dealing with and helping those with dependency problems when there is a lack of resources in counselling and a lack of medical help available. There is also the lack of short-term emergency accommodation and the difficulties in housing the ‘untouchables’, those who have a history of housing problems in the locality. If we are to have social housing for all, that must include everyone, however difficult. Another perceived problem in Pembrokeshire is that of being overshadowed by larger organisations or large urban areas that apply for funding for projects that are supposed to benefit homeless people in the entire region. However, in fact, the money is spent in the cities, with little filtering through to Pembrokeshire.

Also, historically, funding levels set by Westminster have been low. The Assembly has taken steps to address this huge problem and I commend Edwina Hart and Peter Law for their efforts in this regard. Homelessness is not a fashionable topic and public attitudes to homeless people are often unsympathetic and along the lines of ‘it must be their own fault’. PASH will tell you that, more often than not, homelessness results from circumstances beyond a person’s control. Although PASH deals with clients of all ages, the majority of them are under 25. Those young people often have not had any support from their families in their formative years, suffer from low esteem, and have had little guidance on careers or on basic life skills such as budgeting, cleaning and cooking. Money spent on preventative measures would be more than recovered if homeless people claiming benefits became fully functioning, earning members of society. Most could achieve that, if given the chance.

Finally, I welcome the expansion of the definition of the priority homeless to include those who have an institutional or care background, those fleeing harassment and violence, and 16 and 17-year-olds. That is a crucial step in ensuring, through statute, consistency across Wales in giving homeless people the chance they deserve to function fully in society.

I declare an interest as a member of Gwynfi Community Co-operative, which supplies social housing in the Afan Valley, and also of the receipt of a political contribution from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. I will deal with amendments 1 and 5, which cover related issues. It is a pity, as Edwina Hart said in her opening speech, that amendment 5 has two distinct components to it, the second of which deals with affordable rent, and the first of which deals with licensing. Plaid Cymru has a tendency to attempt to gradually erode local government’s ability to make decisions on a wide range of issues. This is the latest example of its trying to undermine the democratic autonomy of local government by proposing amendments such as this. It is interesting that the other party that is a past master of undermining government, the Welsh Conservative Party, is on my right.

Can you explain how the Assembly’s influence on rent levels, which cannot be denied, restricts local government? How will pursuing a licensing scheme for rented accommodation restrict local authorities?

Licensing is a different issue, to which I will come later. However, unless the second part of amendment 5 is merely a vacuous statement, its whole implication is that the Assembly should act to influence what local authorities are doing. Your party consistently takes that position on a wide range of issues. This is nothing new. I am highlighting the consistent position that your party takes in trying to undermine the autonomy of local authorities at almost every opportunity that presents itself.

My second point, on licensing, highlights an important issue. We should seek further clarification on this. I would be disappointed if licensing only dealt with the décor and safety issues of rented accommodation, particularly housing in multiple occupation. The licensing of such rented properties, particularly multiple accommodation occupancy, is becoming an increasing problem in many parts of my constituency. I am sure that it is a growing problem in many other communities where there is relatively low cost housing. In my constituency, as elsewhere I am sure, a new wave of possibly unscrupulous landlords are moving in and buying property at a relatively cheap rate. They undertake minimal repairs to the properties and then, in many, although not in all, circumstances, they house anti-social families in them.

In view of your remark, will you confirm that you will support amendment 5, which calls for licensing? I also take the opportunity to publicise the fact that I will be sleeping out on 8 December, so that Members have the opportunity to support me. I would be grateful for any sponsorship.

The first part of amendment 5 has much merit. That is why I started my contribution by regretting that amendment 5 contained two components. However, I sincerely hope that the licensing proposals not only deal with the décor and fabric of housing, but also consider the social implications of having many more of these houses in certain communities, thus turning those communities into absolute hell-holes for people who have lived there for decades if not generations. I hope that the licensing of these houses will include the social strains and consequences of these types of multiple occupancy houses.

I would have liked to have been able to support Jocelyn’s amendment, as I agree that there are also instances in which even houses in single occupancy have created the same problem. Social landlords have an obligation to ensure that their tenants behave in a lawful and socially responsible manner. The proposed accreditation system for landlords should include some obligation on them to ensure that their tenants behave in that manner. They should be obliged to take action against their socially irresponsible tenants if they are making their neighbours’ lives hell.

Do you support us by agreeing that rent levels should at least be applicable to a minimum wage?

Absolutely. This is for local authorities to decide, as we have housing benefit and so on. The whole purpose of housing benefit is to deal with people on low incomes. However, in this instance, introducing an arbitrary interference with local government, with which your party seems to be obsessed, is the wrong way of going about it.

I hope that licensing and accreditation for landlords will be introduced. I also hope that these measures will be used to make the lives of neighbours of anti-social tenants more tolerable in future.

I welcome the debate, which is important in terms of social inclusion and health among many other issues. This document enables us to make the connections between those issues.

I will mention many points. Although it has already been mentioned, I will refer briefly to housing support for ex-offenders. Society, and presumably offenders, in many instances at least, wants to prevent reoffending. That can be achieved through the offer of support, including housing support. On a practical level, offering the necessary support can prevent reoffending. On a common sense level, I find it difficult to believe that anybody would speak against that.

Is the Member suggesting that those who have committed crimes in society should be given preference over those who have lived law-abiding lives? I cannot support that and would always speak against it.

Unfortunately, David fails to see the practicalities and reality of the situation. It is the same as far as housing support for black and ethnic minority people is concerned. I welcome what the strategy proposes. These people have faced and are still facing discrimination, therefore we need to address the situation. If that offends David’s idea of what positive discrimination should or should not be, so be it. Addressing the situation is necessary and we must ensure that it happens.

I will deal with some specific problems in Newport East, which are indicative of some of the general housing problems in Wales. One of those issues concerns Ringwood Hill. Edwina Hart, as the relevant Minister, knows about the problems of that community and was good enough to visit the location to meet residents recently. These are people who have fallen foul of the housing defects legislation and, through little or no fault of their own, are living in properties that are largely unsaleable because of those defects. The residents and their families are in an unenviable position and are suffering a great deal of human misery. Almost everybody sympathises with their situation and recognises that a way forward must be found. However, finding a way forward is difficult.

The simple way to do that would be to support amendment 4.

It is recognised by the residents and by others that, unfortunately, there is no simple way forward. I thank Edwina Hart for the strenuous efforts being undertaken in the Assembly, and I hope that they will bear fruit eventually. The future for these residents is bleak, and they have been in such a position for some time. Understandably, they are impatient and want positive action quickly, and I am fully committed, in working with Edwina and the local authority, to ensure that that happens.

Another housing issue in Newport is the feasibility study and consultation into community regeneration in Alway. This community consists largely of council properties, most of which are tenanted, with some privately-owned homes. The area is high in the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, and it requires considerable assistance to improve the housing stock and build community capacity. Fortunately, many local people are committed to making the necessary improvements and taking forward the crucial regeneration of this community. I have attended public meetings in the area and have met many tenants. In discussing with them the options for improving the housing stock and the general environment, and for securing the progress that the whole community wishes to see, it has been difficult to go through the increasing number of models available to provide the necessary finance to achieve these objectives. These models are increasing by the month. We have heard about registered social landlords, devolved management structures for communities such as Alway, stock transfers, arm’s-length companies set up by local authorities and various mixtures of the models that I have mentioned.

We could mention possible co-operative ways forward, and I hope that that will pay a part in the future of housing in Wales. These people fear, as shown by many surveys across Britain, that they will suffer in terms of security of tenure, rent levels and their ability to hold people democratically accountable for management of services if they move away from local authority ownership and management. That has come through strongly in this feasibility study and consultation and in all the conversations that I have had with people. It is often difficult to explain to people why they cannot simply stick with the local authority and why the local authority is not allowed to borrow as other organisations might be able to. They are not particularly concerned with the niceties, intricacies and technicalities of the public borrowing requirement, the perceived needs or the macro economic situation. They are concerned with what works. They are constantly told that what everybody is concerned with, and what everybody recognises, is that tenants must be listened to. Their concerns must be given great prominence in the outcomes of consultations and feasibility studies. They have made it clear to me what they would like. I would say that what counts is what works, not ideology or dogma. Tenants want what works because we all want bottom-up solutions not top-down solutions. Survey after survey has shown that local authority tenants want local authority solutions. That is the reality and I hope that we move forward bearing that in mind.

I welcome the acknowledgement in section 6.5 of the housing strategy of some of the specific problems that rural people face in finding suitable accommodation and keeping a roof over their heads. The ability to buy a home in many parts of mid Wales is becoming increasingly difficult, due to the prevalence of second homes and high house prices. This, combined with the fact that many people in rural areas are on low incomes, means that it is difficult for people to remain in their communities, especially young people. When I was looking to move from rented accommodation and buy a property in my constituency, I came across a two-bedroomed terrace cottage. I was amazed, on investigation at the local estate agents, to find that that property was on sale for some £90,000. This was for a two-bedroomed terrace cottage that had little room to swing more than a cat. However, within a week it had been purchased—no doubt by a nice couple from Kingston. In that terrace of 11 properties, nine are second homes, owned by people who come for the occasional weekend and the occasional visit during the summer. That means that for young people growing up in that village and who wish to remain there, buying is simply not an option.

The right to buy policies—I make no judgement on whether they were a good or a bad thing—have led to a restriction on the amount of social housing that is available to many local authorities and to people within rural areas. Housing stock in the private sector also has its problems, with high levels of under-fitness in rural areas. The situation is bad in Powys but particularly bad in Ceredigion. These homes are often owned by older people who have little resources to undertake the necessary repairs. As Richard said earlier, issues of homelessness and rooflessness are no less significant in rural areas, but are often more hidden in rural Wales than they are in urban areas.

I welcome the strategy’s commitment to mediation services, and I declare an interest as someone who, as part of an Assembly volunteering scheme with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, had my placement with Powys Mediation and Mediation Wales. I know how delighted they will be to see the inclusion of this service in the housing strategy.

I welcome David Melding’s attempts to distance himself and his party from the comments made by his colleague David Davies. The last time I looked, it cost exactly the same to rent a flat whether you were 16 or 26. I am afraid that your comments belied the ignorance of issues that often affect young people and the desperation that drives them out of their homes. Sixteen year-olds do not leave home because of a tiff or a family squabble, but as a result of some form of abuse. Your comment—

Your are dramatising some of the things that I said. I did not say that all young people leave home because of a tiff, but some do. That is a fact. If you are trying to state otherwise, you are wrong. I also made it abundantly clear that I sympathised with the majority of women who allege domestic violence. In the majority of cases, that is true but a small minority makes false allegations. Do not try to overdramatise what I said.

No David, you are right, there is nothing dramatic about a woman being beaten to within an inch of her life or a young person having to flee their home because of consistent abuse.

I welcome the fact that the majority of Welsh Conservatives have taken the opportunity to align themselves with your colleague, David Melding, rather than with your comments today—[Interruption.]

In conclusion, I believe that the problems identified in section 6.5 accurately reflect the situation faced by people in rural communities. What we need now is action and not acknowledgement. I am sure that that action will follow.

I declare an interest as a Member of Swansea City and County Council. This is an important debate that I am pleased to sum up. There have been many contributions today and I will do my best to deal with all of them, but in doing so I will not have time to take many interventions, and I would be grateful if Members could bear that in mind.

The development of a national housing strategy means that, for the first time, Wales will have a comprehensive set of housing policies that recognise the legitimacy of all tenures and deals with them equally. That strategy will provide the context for local strategies and actions that aim to ensure that people have more choice and flexibility over housing to meet their needs. It will also seek to harness the contribution and commitment of all our partners in the four key shared objectives: the support of sustainable home ownership; a thriving, well-managed rented sector, with good standards of accommodation; high quality social housing managed efficiently and communities that are free from crime and are non-threatening—places where people actually want to live.

William Graham’s amendment 1 referred to the private sector. I state clearly that the strategy before us is a national one, not a social housing strategy. The 80 groups involved in its drafting included The Housebuilders Federation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of Residential Letting Agents, and they all supported the need to improve the quality of our housing by regulation, which belies William’s amendment. We must ask ourselves what is unnecessary regulation? Does William want to do away with building regulations, planning controls or health and safety regulations? Does he want builders to build on greenfield sites and flood plains? A great deal of regulation is necessary to ensure that those controls are in place, that housing is appropriate and that it is sited and built safely in places where people want to live. Someone also mentioned that the Conservatives spent more in 1996 than we did in 2000. Clearly, William has looked at the budget, but he has also been selective in his consideration of it.

There has been a constant decline since 1992 in the amount spent on housing year on year, and it is only in recent times—since the National Assembly has come into being—that we have seen an increase in the amount of money available for basic credit approvals and special credit approvals for housing in Wales. That is included in the budget that we will debate on 7 December. It is an achievement of this partnership Government, and of the Assembly, that we are starting to turn that decline around.

Precast reinforced concrete homes were mentioned a number of times. That is a matter for local councils, and I cannot stress enough that the National Assembly is keen that councils make their own decisions on how to spend their money. We are giving them capital funding, which they can use for council housing, for grants and for specific projects such as PRC. How they spend the money is their choice. It is not for the National Assembly to say how that money should be allocated. On the national audit of housing stock, which William and other speakers mentioned, that will be best done locally, by local councils, to meet local needs. To facilitate that, we will give local councils grants towards 50 per cent of the cost of drawing up those surveys.

Janet Davies mentioned the homelessness commission, and complained that no member of the opposition was on that commission. It should be made clear that the homelessness commission consists of housing professionals, working under political guidance. It is in the process of being established. When it reaches its conclusions, those proposals will come back to the Local Government and Housing Committee and the Assembly for full debate.

As for Janet’s accusation that we are meekly working within the rules of the Treasury, there is nothing meek about the local government and housing portfolio. We have made representations several times to the Treasury about the public sector borrowing requirement, and we continue to do so. We support changes but we cannot give up because the rules are against us. We have to find the most acceptable solutions to get the money that we need into council housing. In terms of the private finance initiative, perhaps that is more preferable to stock transfer as it keeps the housing in public ownership. However, we need to keep all our options open. There is no concealment and no hiding behind closed doors. We are speaking out publicly in the Assembly, in meetings around Wales and in the press, when it is prepared to listen, about the importance of housing in Wales and of tackling housing needs.

Among many other things, Val Feld talked about the impact of the right to buy. I agree that one reason why we have problems in providing social housing, in rural areas in particular, is because of the right to buy that was established in the 1980s. Stock transfer is only one option and it is the council’s and its tenants’ decision. Val also welcomed the new categories of homelessness. It is important that we are taking that forward.

On the new rules on intentionality, the homelessness commission will consider that. It will also need to consider the levels of support for homeless people in council housing. I understand that the social housing revenue grant funding will be reviewed in the next two years in any case.

Women fleeing domestic violence form another important housing issue. They are included in the new categories of priorities for homelessness, and we will consider that issue during consultation. We will encourage local authorities to incorporate that issue in their local housing strategies.

Alun Cairns mentioned a number of points, particularly on private investments. I think that he used the words ‘the politics of envy’. Alun, we are not into dogma like you. We are in favour of the choice to live in a high-quality home. We do not want to pre-judge the consultation, as you do in your amendment. We reject amendment 1 on the grounds that it refers to ‘excessive regulation’, of which we are still awaiting definition. I mentioned that previously when replying to William Graham.

Karen Sinclair made several valid points, particularly on housing benefit. We will support amendment 10 to simplify housing benefit. That is included in the document in any case and is also in line with the Committee’s response to the Government’s Green Paper. It is a matter for the UK Government, but the Minister will discuss the outcome of its consultations with it in the near future.

Janet Ryder raised many points. I mentioned the national audit of housing needs. It is expensive and prescriptive but it should be done locally by local councils. She mentioned local provision tied to local needs. The best way to do that is for local councils themselves to act or know what that local need is. As I said, we are providing 50 per cent funding for that. I have mentioned the public sector borrowing requirement, to which she also referred. I assure Janet that the White Paper on housing, which is mentioned in the partnership Government document, will be the outcome of that consultation. It has not been scrapped, but it will come back to the Assembly as a White Paper. The Committee will be informed of the outcome of the consultation, which was another of Janet’s concerns.

Gwenda mentioned the assessment of the criteria of a disablement facilities grant. I agree that they need to be fast-tracked to councils. Forty million pounds is being made available over the next three years to councils for disabled facility grants. We will encourage them to try to reduce their backlog and to tackle that. I am sympathetic to Gwenda’s points on guidelines on rent arrears, particularly for women fleeing violence. Local councils can decide how they exercise their discretion. We need to review the responses from the consultation and see what people have to say about this.

David Davies is the fount of political correctness. Home ownership, David, is an important sector. However, we should not direct scarce resources for that aim when there is a £750 million backlog of council housing, huge backlog of repairs in owner-occupied homes and a 20 per cent level of disrepair in the private rented sector. Licensing is essential if we are to bring the private rented sector up to scratch, make it safe and force some of the worse landlords to face up to their responsibilities. Some of the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society live in that sector and need protection from landlords and the conditions in which they are forced to live. David mentioned the black and minority ethnic housing association. He was at the Committee meeting when we discussed this, so he knows that group’s special needs. He also knows about the barriers that many of them face. The housing association will help to tackle that particular problem.

David Davies also mentioned that he was against preferential treatment for prisoners and was uneasy about the changes to priority homelessness for 16-18-year olds. He voted for both of these in the Assembly. He mentioned that it is easy for 16-18-year olds to walk out of homes and to access cash. That is complete nonsense. I was talking to a housing organisation yesterday when someone came in to say that they had just returned from the squat where many young people under the age of 18 live in dangerous surroundings, and are very vulnerable. They have been alienated from society, abused and are in need of help and support. The changes in priority homes are designed to help those people and we also want to find other ways to help them. We cannot dismiss them as easily as David has done. I welcome his comments about Mediation Wales and I have met them on behalf of Edwina. There is a section in the document about that and it is an important tool in housing issues in resolving disputes. Funding Mediation Wales is a key issue, as with all voluntary sector bodies.

Ann Jones mentioned absentee landlords. That is a big issue, which hopefully licensing will address. Registration schemes now exist and eight authorities have them and they are valuable. However, the new legislation will widen the definition of privately rented housing and hopefully give us some important secondary powers, which I believe we should welcome. Although we cannot support amendment 5 because of its second part, it is something that this Government supports and will press the UK Government to introduce.

Geraint Davies mentioned many issues including Communities First. In the second consultation paper on Communities First that will be debated in Plenary on 11 January 2001, there are no proposals to restrict that to the five health areas, as Geraint says. We agree that there is a need to link housing and ill-health. That is a priority and we will make a start with the extra £40 million that we are putting into credit approvals, in particular, over the next three years. A decision on the major repairs allowance has not been taken yet; that is out to consultation. However, we need to review the way that councils manage their stock. The resource accounting regime that we are also consulting on will help councils to better understand the financial needs of their stock and target their resources in a more effective way.

Geraint also referred to the reduction in funding for Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council that he said had decreased from £14 million to £9 million. That is not true. Rhondda Cynon Taff had an extra £2 million this year for renewable areas, and their total—[Interruption.]

The total credit approval for Rhondda Cynon Taff has fallen by £2.5 million from last year, but how they spend that is up to them. One of the main reasons for that is because they had a one-off grant last year of £7 million to tackle their backlog in renovation grants, which has not been repeated this year. The Assembly has been generous to Rhondda Cynon Taff in the context of their financial constraints last year, and with the extra money that will be available this year; we can deal with that again.

Do you think that the money given to Rhondda Cynon Taff with regard to the housing grant is sufficient?

The document recognises that housing has not had sufficient resources, which is why we are trying to put more money into it in the coming years. I cannot change what has happened in the past. We can try and make sure that it is put right in the future. What I pointed out to you was that the statement that you made was inaccurate and was due largely to the special, one-off allocation that was given to Rhondda Cynon Taff last year.

I thank Peter Law for his remarks about this document and I repeat Edwina’s praise for his hard work in preparing this document and managing the task groups. This document is a huge testament to his work when he was the Secretary for Local Government and Housing. When Peter was speaking David Davies intervened and said that homelessness has increased since 1997. The difference, David, is that since 1997, we have started to count homelessness and commit resources to tackle it, whereas the previous Conservative government always denied that homelessness existed.

Will you take an intervention?

I am not giving way. [Interruption.]

When you acknowledge homelessness, your statistics will change. You should recognise, David, the disservice that the previous Conservative government did to homelessness in this country. We all regret it and we are trying to redress that now in this document.

I welcome David Melding’s support for Care and Repair Cymru. I know that he will have noticed that money for carers in particular will have doubled by the end of the third year of this budget. That point has not been brought to the fore. I also agree with him that there is a huge demand for disabled facility grants, which is why we allocated the extra money and why we are reviewing elderly person housing in the context of the comprehensive strategy for the elderly in Wales. David also mentioned the design of homes; he will be pleased to know that there is support in this document for the concept of life-time homes which will tackle many of the concerns that he raised about the design of new homes, in particular in the context of disability.

Richard Edwards referred to homelessness in rural areas, which is not always recognised. I pay tribute to organisations like Pembrokeshire Action for Single Homeless and also to Arfon Young Single Homeless Group in Gwynedd, to whom I spoke last week. We need to ensure that all councils have homeless strategies, not just those in urban areas, although I know that some rural authorities do so at the moment. We need to make sure that the Section 180 grants reach all parts of Wales, and this has been increased by £3.5 million over the next three years.

Brian Gibbons referred to amendment 5 on rent levels, which I have not dealt with, but Edwina touched upon it. That particular issue—

I am not taking any more interventions. I am over time already. [ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘Hear, hear’.] Members made many points and I am sure that you want answers to them. I am coming to the end of dealing with them, which I am sure the Presiding Officer will appreciate.

We talked about rent levels: linking rent levels to average wages would have significant financial costs for this Assembly. If those rents work out to be higher than the level at which the Treasury would like us to set them, then it may seek to reclaim from us the difference in the housing benefit payments. It will also constrain the budget and may prevent much needed investment in housing. Also, average wage levels often increase at a rate higher than inflation. If we sought to have an increase in rent levels on a par with inflation, this amendment might result in some tenants being penalised. That is important and needs to be taken into account. We cannot tie the Assembly’s hands on this. We support licensing, but because that other issue is included in amendment 5, we cannot support it.

Finally—[CONSERVATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘Yes!’] Well, you made a lot of points. Kirsty Williams mentioned rural housing. The document acknowledges the need for more affordable housing and a more flexible use of low cost home ownership. We are looking for views on problems in rural areas, including the impact of second homes, the right to buy and other related issues. I think that I have dealt with the all the points that have been raised. I commend this document and thank you all for your contributions.