National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. Today we have received apologies from committee member Siân Gwenllian for the public item, our scrutiny session with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, and we have Lindsay Whittle MS here as a substitute for that item. Croeso, Lindsay. 

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

The public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. The meeting is bilingual and simultaneous translation is available. Are there any declarations of interest from committee members? There are not.

Item 2, then, is our scrutiny session with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government with regard to the Welsh Government's draft budget for the forthcoming financial year, 2026-27. So, welcome, Cabinet Secretary and your officials. Perhaps I might begin, then, with some initial general questions, and firstly on the preventative value of investing in housing. Last year, Cabinet Secretary, you accepted this committee's recommendation to commission an updated analysis of the cost benefits of housing and regeneration investment on wider public spending. Could you update the committee on the progress that has been made on that matter?

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and bore da. Well, the benefits of investment in housing on wider public spending are well established and evidenced. This has really informed our sustained levels of record investment in affordable housing that's driving the delivery that we are seeing. Recent evidence was provided in the report published by Savills this month, and they assessed the impact of housing associations in Wales across key themes, such as people, economy and public services. An evaluation of the Transforming Towns programme has already begun and been commissioned, and that will report early next year, so around March, and the evaluation will look at the impact of our investment for supporting regeneration projects in Wales. But we're using the information that we have to support our strategy development work and work with the Welsh Government's Treasury to look at strategic investments in homes across all tenures. So, I think one of the best things that we can do is feed that information into our strategy development work.

So, all of that put together, then, Cabinet Secretary, does that constitute that analysis of the cost benefits of housing and regeneration investment on wider public spending, or does that go part of the way?

In terms of the draft budget and the allocation to housing and regeneration, obviously, I've pushed for as much funding as possible to be allocated within my portfolio, and been successful in retaining that high level of funding for the delivery of more homes and the homelessness prevention work. So, just to say, obviously, the draft budget is the starting point, not the end of the process. It does provide stability for all departments from 2026-27, with at least the same levels of funding in real terms as it does from last year.  

Yes, but just in terms of that committee recommendation, does what you've described meet the committee's recommendation? 

I think that's the work we're doing in terms of feeding into that 10-year strategy that we have, with the work that is being done with the Welsh Government's Treasury to just feed that in. But perhaps Jamie can say a bit more about that work.

Just to add to what the Cabinet Secretary said on the work with the Welsh Treasury, committee members may be aware of the work ongoing in terms of the Welsh spending review, which is looking at the specific challenges across the board—so, across the piece. Unlike the UK Government comprehensive spending review, this is not a single event. So, it'll be a new approach, in terms of embedding the long-term strategic planning and picking up key areas in the housing space alongside others across the Welsh Government. Clearly, that's important now, going forward, as we look to address some of the significant financial challenges across the public sector. So, that'll help, I think, in terms of that longer term planning process.

Does that, though, constitute that analysis of the cost benefits of housing and regeneration investment for wider public spending?

The Welsh spending review will look at the cost benefits associated with all of the strategic challenges that we're facing as an organisation, so it'll pick up the housing agenda alongside all of the other key elements across the Welsh Government.

Cabinet Secretary, if we move on to the proportion of the draft budget allocated to housing and regeneration, you've set out the general position already: the proportion of the overall Welsh Government budget to housing and regeneration is 4.85 per cent. Given the preventative impact of good housing in so many ways—health and much else—do you think that's enough?

I'll always be, as I said, pushing for more investment. We all know the benefits of housing for, like you say, health and educational attainment. I will very much say that I'll always continue to push for that. But, as I said in response to the last question, it's important to remember that this draft budget is very much the starting point and not the end of the process. We, and I, certainly, do recognise that there are areas, including housing and regeneration, where additional investment could make a difference, and, obviously, every main expenditure group could benefit from further funding. I will continue to push on that within the Cabinet, but, again, the final budget, I think, will look very different. So, that's the intention, and our ambition is to use all of the resources available and to work to develop a budget that reflects all of those shared priorities.

Just to say a couple of the things that, again—. I think the retention of the budget is a huge prospect, really. I think it's also about the sustained investment that we've seen. A couple of examples, perhaps: the social housing grant budget expenditure line has increased by 42 per cent, which was an additional £126 million since 2021, and the housing support grant has increased by over 60 per cent, and that's up £77 million since it was established in 2019. So, I think there are patterns and trends towards that significant investment, and I think that sustained investment is important for confidence within the sector as well.

Okay. Lindsay.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. The proportion of the preventative budget, for example, for health and education—have you had any discussions with those appropriate Ministers to try to increase their allocation to be put towards housing? I worked as a housing professional in this city and parts of south Wales for 26 years. I visited Cuba—the best education and health system in the world, but their housing was abysmal. It's almost similar in Wales. Our education system is okay and our health system is okay. They're all struggling, and our housing is still grim in many parts. The difference with Cuba is that they could cope with people coming back into the health system. When we release people from hospital, if we're releasing them back into cold, damp houses that are not suitable, then they're going to be back in hospital sooner than we would wish. I think that the health and education Ministers should be looking at giving some of their budget to your budget—I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn—so that it would prevent people returning into hospital. Are there any discussions? 

I regularly have those discussions with colleagues, because I do agree with you on the importance of housing to health. I think that is very well established, isn't it? It's absolutely essential. I've seen it previously in terms of discussing people leaving hospital, where they're going. We invest in Care & Repair, for example, making sure that people are able to have those adaptations to properties, which I think is really important. I absolutely share your passion for that, because, absolutely, they are so intrinsically linked, aren't they? Those discussions continue, because every little impact—. If we're investing here, sometimes that can take the pressure off other services, such as health. I think how we do that in a budget-wide situation seems to be complex, but I certainly take your point and agree with you on that.

Well, you have my support in your fight, anyway. 

In terms of the overall approach to the draft budget, Cabinet Secretary, even though it's inflation only, obviously you might have chosen to prioritise certain budget lines within the overall allocation. Could you just set out why you've taken the approach that you have? 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think the approach that we've taken is just that need to maintain the stability. Something that I hear regularly from those that I meet is that continuity of funding. That 2 per cent inflationary uplift has been applied to each of those capital budget expenditure lines, just ensuring that every capital programme has at least the same level of funding in real terms as in the current year. That's just something that I've heard from the sector around that continuity of funding, which has been so important to them. Jamie would like to come in.

I'll add a bit more context, just to build on that. I think one of the earlier questions mentioned that the housing and regeneration budget is around 5 per cent of the Welsh Government budget, which is right. The Cabinet Secretary has mentioned capital there. I think it's important to understand that the housing and regeneration capital budget represents 30 per cent of the Welsh Government's capital budget, which obviously makes sense given the nature of what's going on here. We've mentioned health briefly. The health capital budget is £0.6 billion, which is around half of what housing gets. So, contextually, I think it's important to understand that housing and regeneration does get a very significant and by far and away the biggest capital share of the budget.

We would always like more though.

Absolutely. In terms of the unallocated funding, Cabinet Secretary, £375 million, I'm sure you would like to have some of that for housing and regeneration. What would your priorities be if you were able to access some of that money, which, as I say, I am sure you would like to?

Absolutely. Again, as I said earlier, I've pressed for as much funding as possible to be allocated to the portfolio. I have seen record levels of investment, particularly around housing supply, and that's been really important. As you mentioned, the unallocated funding at this stage is deliberate and it does allow us to respond to external events and scrutinies as we move towards the final budget.

I think, in terms of my perspective, my priorities haven't changed. They are really clear: delivering more homes, homelessness prevention and investing in regeneration. I will continue to make the case for my portfolio. We know one of the areas, for example, the housing support grant, is something that was welcomed last year with that increased investment. Obviously, it is the same and a rollover this time, plus 2 per cent. So, that has been an additional £21 million for the housing support grant and £81 million for social housing, and that is baselined into the budget.

Okay, thank you. Lindsay Whittle, please.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Minister, the Cabinet Secretary’s papers say that there’s an estimated cost of £2.5 million to local authorities to prepare for the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. Between 22 local authorities, do you still feel that figure is sound, given the resources concerns that were raised by the local authorities during the Stage 1 scrutiny? 

Diolch, Lindsay. Yes, I do believe it's sound. The funding does deliver the regulatory impact assessment commitment for funding this year, and we've had no feedback to suggest that the allocation for pre-implementation is insufficient, just to make sure you're aware of that. I know that officials have already started having conversations with local authorities about this funding, and they're meeting Housing Leadership Cymru, I think maybe even as we speak this morning, on that.

But just to say that the purpose of the funding is around that pre-implementation period, and it's setting those appropriate protocols and the guidance as well. So it's not about the service delivery, on which obviously we have to wait until the Bill has cleared all the scrutiny stages in terms of the rest of that. But the RIA does set out our best estimates and costs.

Thank you for that clarity, which puts it in a better context for me as a new Member and in my first committee meeting as a substitute.

One of the major challenges of the Bill is increasing early prevention, but of course that takes time and money. Do you think we should be looking to front-load that process by resourcing local authorities to make changes now? The reason I ask—and I'm sorry to be parochial and highlight Caerphilly, but that's why I'm here—is that in Caerphilly it's taking now on average 200 to 300 days to relet a property because there is so much work being carried out in the council houses.

I think at the moment there are between 250 and 300 empty council properties in Caerphilly, some of them for as long as eight, nine and ten months. That is, in my opinion, as a former housing professional, totally unacceptable. My target was four days to let a house. The targets are not being met at all. They're futile now. And of course, we've got people sofa surfing, living in bed and breakfasts, hotels, hostels and it's costing money. Local authorities throughout Wales, I assume, are losing income as well, and paying for these properties to be boarded up and paying the quite high hotel fees for the homeless.

The purpose of the question is can we do something—. I'm told by council officers that, in fact, the reason for this is Senedd officials are actually insisting that properties are almost gutted again, and that is after spending £400 million to £500 million on Welsh housing quality standards. Is this happening in other local authorities? I can tell you it's certainly happening in Caerphilly. On every single council estate that I represent, social media are full of the fact that there are empty homes for literally months, and people still waiting on a waiting list in unsavoury conditions in properties. Even if you're in a Travelodge, it's not ideal if the whole family is crammed into one bedroom with no cooking facilities at all. I think a lot of work needs to be done there, Minister.

I should have welcomed you as well, Lindsay, to the committee for your first meeting. Just firstly in terms of what you touched on in terms of the prevention work on homelessness, the funding we provide in the draft budget is for that pre-implementation work, and that's ahead of Royal Assent as well. We've seen, actually, across Wales housing teams within local authorities working really well to try and shift their focus ahead to the Bill and how that will change. We've seen some really good examples, one of which is in Neath Port Talbot, where they've shifted some of the work that they're doing in preparation for the Bill.

You mentioned temporary accommodation as well, and obviously I completely agree we want to see fewer people in temporary accommodation. Local authorities, as you all know, are working really hard to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation, particularly children in the worst quality type of temporary accommodation. Again, I often say that sometimes we see the numbers in temporary accommodation and it can seem rather static, but actually so many people are being moved out into permanent homes. So, there is a lot of work going on in that.

In terms of the empty properties, we want to see people moved out and those homes brought back into use as quickly as possible. Sometimes, there can be a number of reasons why that is taking longer. Again, one of the things that I've been doing recently is having round-tables with local authorities and housing leads. I had one last week, actually, where Caerphilly was one of the local authorities that came along with the housing cabinet member, and also a lead housing official, with other local authorities just to discuss some areas around good practice. Some were sometimes providing that challenge to us, and we were able to provide some challenge back as well. So, I think that really helps try to shape where we can see some of that good work in other areas happening. I don't know if there's anything else anybody wants to say about empty properties.

On the empties standards issue, if you mean, by Senedd officials, Welsh Government officials, we definitely don't ask for a home to be gutted prior to them coming back into use. They do need to be of a standard, and through our acquisition standards we've tried to be as pragmatic as possible, even going to the lowest possible size standard without breaching UK law and legislation, essentially. We talked a lot about this on the affordable housing taskforce—on what could and couldn't be bought, and we went through that quite a lot. There are a lot—. It's great to see Caerphilly with an empty homes strategy and an empty homes officer, which is also a recommendation of the taskforce. Through the extra £55 million that the Cabinet Secretary put into the transitional accommodation capital programme, that increases the amount of money we've got to acquire. We have the empty homes grant, we have the social housing grant that you can make acquisitions with, so there are lots of different pots of money to help with that. Could we do more on that? I think so. So, that's a bit of extra information on that.

One of the things that Caerphilly did highlight was their empty homes officer, and saying that that was something that they were focusing on. We're trying to encourage other local authorities, actually, to have a similar thing. As Stuart mentioned, that has come from the affordable homes taskforce as well, but they've seen some real progress, they feel, at the moment. There's still more to do, though—I don't want to rest on any laurels on that at all. 

I'm certainly not critical of the Caerphilly council housing officials—I've been there myself; I've ridden the same bicycle. However, you need to be aware that the blame is being laid firmly here, with respect, at your officials. Members of the public are beginning to—. My inbox is absolutely inundated with housing—that is the top priority I have received in the last three weeks, you wouldn't know. There is something radically wrong in Caerphilly and the fault is being laid here. That is why, perhaps, the turnout was higher in Caerphilly than it's ever been. But I don't want this Senedd to be blamed. I'm not here for a blame culture. I'm here to get people together to work for the good of us all, and I think that's important. So, thank you for that, Chair. 

I think this is the last question I have to ask. Last year, this committee recommended you continue to put pressure on the UK Government—well, that's a given for, I would imagine, every single department here—to increase the amount of local housing allowance that local authorities can claim for temporary accommodation. What action have you taken on this in the last year, and what more will you do? And could I add a supplementary, although I think there's something coming up later on, about what are you doing for the travelling community as well? That's very near and dear to my heart. I've met members of the travelling community within the last two weeks. I'm sorry to pinch somebody else's question.

Thank you. Diolch, Lindsay. In terms of the LHA, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions earlier this year to press the UK Government on the issue, and that was a joint letter with the Welsh Local Government Association and Community Housing Cymru's chief executive. Subsequent to my letter, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has also written to the UK Government, urging that reconsideration of the LHA rates. That was as part of the wider dialogue around child poverty and issues around that. So, we've very much made the argument around the change, and also to restore the LHA rates to the fiftieth percentile, with an automatic annual uplift. That's been in line with the long-standing position of the Welsh Government over a number of years to the UK Government on that. I do fully agree that the LHA rate, and doing those actions, would actually make a real difference for people on that low income. I'll continue to press that. We'll see what comes out with the Chancellor's statement very shortly. But I will look to see, if that doesn't happen, how we take that forward again, and continue to make those arguments that we have done over a number of years now to be heard on this.

On the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller question—

It's a later question—sorry.

Well, just to say on that, like you, I've met members of the community as well, through cross-party groups as well as individual contacts, and I know how some of the difficulties particular to that community are felt, and how real those struggles are. I know the committee has had a strong interest in this as well. A lot of that sits with my Cabinet colleague Jane Hutt, so I do work closely with Jane Hutt on these matters. But a lot of the policy area is really within her portfolio, even though some of that transcends over to housing. But I have heard some of those real concerns.

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Chair. It feels as if I have never left. Can I say, with a passion as much as I can muster, that anything to do with housing, anywhere, any time, I'm your man to try and help you? Thank you very much.

Okay, Lindsay. Diolch yn fawr. Peter Fox.

Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Just a couple of questions from me on housing support. You'll recall that the committee suggested that the housing support grant really could do with an uplift, yet we know the constraints on the budget, or rather the desire for a rollover budget, and we're only seeing a 2 per cent increase in that budget. Why have you not chosen, or the Government not chosen, to inflate that more, recognising the pressure the sector is under?

Diolch, Peter. I touched on how important I think the HSG is. I've heard from many people since I came into post, and I understand how important that is. Obviously, we have that Cabinet agreement for the rollover budget plus 2 per cent. But, to be clear, over the years, the housing support grant has been increased by 60 per cent, by £77 million, since 2019. So, again, it's that sustained investment and how important that has been, and is seen, and I obviously continue to see that as being crucial. We've consistently baselined budget increases, and we're building on them in this budget as well. Obviously, there are still lots of challenges, but I very much see that as a key area where I would like to see those increases, if that's possible, following the negotiations with the finance Secretary.

I recognise your personal desire to increase this, but, obviously, you're tied in with a collective Cabinet perspective. Does the Cabinet believe that this is sufficient to enable a strong housing support grant allocation to do all the things that it should do, or is it just recognising that there isn't enough money, and that's where it has to be?

As I say, I think we've seen that sustained investment over the years. So, I think there has been that understanding from my predecessor but also Cabinet colleagues on this. I continue to see this as a key area where that investment is needed and to drive that support for the workforce in particular, because without the workforce, we can't implement lots of the changes that we want to do, such as homelessness. So, we very much see that as a real driving force.

Thanks for that. If I could look at the third sector, it certainly impacts on the homelessness sector. We've heard from Llamau the pressure they're going to face because of employer national insurance, about a £500,000 bill, which is really concerning for a service that is so important. I just wondered what assessment you're making of the impact on the wider third sector homelessness providers. What is the impact of these national insurance contributions going to be on what they can deliver?

Certainly. Thank you, Peter. I do recognise the changes to NI contributions and the costs. I've heard from Llamau myself and other organisations within the third sector over the last year as well. As you know, we uplifted the HSG from £21 million, or 11.5 per cent, in the 2025-26 budget, and that original intention was not around meeting the employer national insurance contributions. Obviously, we made that decision before that was out there.

We've carried out some internal high-level analysis of the likely impact of the changes to the employer national insurance contributions in respect of HSG-funded services. That analysis was conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. But just to give a bit of a health warning on that figure, because there are significant limitations to our analysis as there are lots of different factors within that in terms of staffing compositions with individual organisations and salary ranges. The HSG doesn't fund all homelessness services. Some third sector services, such as Llamau, that we've talked about deliver other services across Wales, and they're not funded through the HSG. So, it's really difficult to quantify the impact. But it is really difficult.

In respect of the third sector more broadly, my colleague Jane Hutt, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, has provided funding to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and Nottingham Trent University to develop a new Wales-focused barometer, which is to better understand the health of the third sector in Wales. That includes the financial and staffing pressures in the sector, and confidence about the future. I believe that the first set of reports are going to be published in the next few months. So, it might be something that the committee would be keen to follow.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Peter. Lee Waters, joining us online.

[Inaudible.]—chaired the Government's affordable homes taskforce. I'm no longer doing that work, but I think it's important context for the record.

Minister, a couple of questions on the house building target. You've announced this week that you are hoping to reach the 20,000 target by the end of the next calendar year, not by the end of the term, as you were intending. I just want to dig into that a little bit. That's assuming, presumably, the budgetary assumptions of the draft budget, namely a 2 per cent rise in line with inflation. Is that right? Is reaching that target by the end of next year dependent on those assumptions standing firm?

In terms of the 2 per cent? Yes. But perhaps Stuart can go—. Yes, Stuart, please.

Many of those—. Hi, Lee, by the way. Many of those homes in the pipeline that we will have published in the management information data that we shared will already have funding. So, I would expect next year's funding, with the 2 per cent uplift, to be investing homes in future pipelines. So, those homes, up to the end of the Senedd term in April, and many of those up to November, where we get to the 20,000, will already have that planning and, if not all, much of the funding in place. So, it's not 100 per cent reliant on it, but—[Interruption.] Is that—?

Okay. Yes. So, that begs the question then that if some of the delivery of that target is dependent on those assumptions turning out to be correct, then, obviously, inflation is not running at 2 per cent, but it's running at 3.5 per cent. So, we know that those assumptions aren't sound. That's not a criticism; that's the way you're forced to calculate inflationary figures based on the Treasury rules. So, this isn't a criticism; it's just concerning that you are going to miss your target. The target you're hoping to meet is, in part, dependent on achieving an inflation level that is not what the real economy is running at. 

Chair, perhaps Stuart is a bit closer to the figures.

I absolutely see the point and the challenge there. You'll know that the social housing grant is a three-year rolling programme, so the information that we've published on the delivery, up to the end of 2026, is what the sector tells us is in the pipeline, with completion dates up to then. So, there will be a level of assumption at that level that they have the funding, or that it will come. We do the social housing grant using allocations. So, there is a level of assumption—

Yes, you can count 2 per cent. 

So, there is a level of assumption that that will be there. But these are schemes, I would say, that are quite well progressed, Lee, so those—

But do they rely on an assumption of a unit cost that is running below where actual inflation is, so the outturn costs turn out to be greater than you budgeted for and, therefore, you have to either find more money or deliver fewer houses?

Sorry, can I—

Sorry—Jamie, yes. 

Can I just come in on the inflation assumption, if that's okay? We've obviously got the UK Government's budget next week and, as part of that process, new Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts will be published, and that will then feed into the future final budget. So, the assumption we've used at the moment is the 2 per cent assumption, which is the latest available assumption. There may be a revised assumption next week as part of the UK Government budget, and then that will feed into, potentially, changes in terms of our funding allocation. So, we've kind of got to wait and see what that brings us, because, as you said, inflation is different from a 2 per cent assumption as things currently stand. 

Okay. Well, I think we do just need to test those assumptions, to make sure that the forecasts you're providing us are robust. So, perhaps we can return to that.

I thing—sorry, Lee, to interrupt you—Stuart wants to come back on—

It was only one—

Oh, sorry. 

It was only one point. So, where there are—. So, some of those in the pipeline will have build contracts in place, and—

Yes, sure. 

—we know the cost. 

I understand that. 

And then, another—

I think you can see that some of it is dependent.

Yes. What's really helpful, though, is that in our—I don't want to get into it here—standard viability model, we do projections of what we think we will need to be paying in grants, so how things like the consumer price index and material cost increases, and, for acquisitions, house price increases will impact on what we're paying and average grant rate as well. What's positive to see is that material cost increases have come right down and levelled out from what we've seen in the past. So, that is a positive, alongside the CPI—

I hear what you're saying. I guess what I'm asking is: how confident are you that your assumptions are robust, in light of the fact that there is a gap between your projected inflation and the actual inflation? You're telling me that you are pretty confident—

Yes. 

Yes. 

—that those assumptions are correct. 

Yes. 

And I just want us to just check that one more time before the final budget. 

Yes. 

Can I move on to a different topic, looking at empty homes? And this may well be a stupid question, so forgive me if it is, but I'm a bit confused by the evidence paper and the understanding I have. The draft budget includes £25 million for the empty homes grant. We know that there are problems with the delivery of empty homes, and you told us back in January that you're going to be reviewing the way the empty homes grant is administered to see if there are barriers that can be changed to improve the uptake of the scheme. I'm not aware if we've had any outcomes from that, so perhaps you can update us briefly in the answer. But when we did ask you to update us on the actual spend for that grant—. So, as I say, £25 million budgeted, but in 2023-24 only £1.7 million was spent, and in 2024-25 only £6 million was spent, and this year's budget includes an assumption of £25 million, which is quite a big jump. I hope it's not a stupid question: can I just test those figures and my understanding and what's going on there?

Yes. Thanks, Lee. Just in terms of empty homes, in terms of the empty homes grant, just to say that we've received over 1,208 valid applications. Of the valid applications, 440 have been approved and works have been completed on 370, and 70 applications are in progress. In terms of the independent evaluation of the empty homes grant, the report is being published today, so we'll make sure that the—

It would've been more helpful if we'd seen it before today, wouldn't it?

Well, it has just been published. It's been in progress for a while, as you know. Obviously, I'll be considering the recommendations from that in detail, but I'm very keen that, obviously, the committee has a chance to consider that as well. I think some of the outline of it is that the scheme's made some progress in bringing those empty homes back into use, but there's more that can be achieved. And I think one of the points that came earlier was around the point about the dedicated empty homes officer, which I know the housing taskforce also, again, agreed to. In terms of the specific number on empty homes, Stuart—

Yes. So, in 2025-26, we've got £3.3 million committed, which equates to 132 applications, and then a further £7.8 million on approved grants but not yet claimed in 2025-26. So, the £25 million roll-over is high, but that's a budget that has been rolled over. Jamie, I don't know if you want to come in on that.

As you say, Stuart, that's in line with the principle of the roll-over budget.

Yes, there would be—

So, you keep rolling it over but not spending it?

Well, obviously, we were talking earlier about how we want to make sure we are spending that and, from the report that we will have that's been published today, we'll look at those recommendations in detail and see how better we can use that.

But the gap between what you're hoping to spend and the gap between what you're currently committed to spending and expecting to spend is quite considerable, isn't it?

And I think that's why we're keen to have that independent evaluation of the grant. Just to say, it's not the only pot of funding that supports empty properties. We've got Leasing Scheme Wales, we've got those Transforming Towns loans, the buildings development fund, and TACP, so the empty homes grant is not the sole grant for that, but, again—

I guess what I'm getting at is that this number you're giving us in the draft budget—and today we're scrutinising the draft budget—is not a real number, is it? This £25 million, that's not real. You've never spent that. You're not realistically going to spend that. So, why do you have it in there?

Well, again, it's a demand-led scheme. We're keen that that is used, but, Jamie—

Just to add to that, I'm sure committee members will be familiar with the process, but we take a view, and this is the view at this point in time: we'll have a final budget and then we'll have supplementary budgets as we go through the year, but we revise the budgets based on how the actual situation is playing out in practice. So, this number will likely move alongside other budgets as we progress through the financial year.

Okay. It's very difficult to scrutinise you on budgets, on numbers that don't mean very much, to be honest. Can I move on to a different point, which is the land division draft budget allocation? This relates to the provision of affordable homes, because, obviously, the provision of land is one of the key variables, and lots of housing associations say that if they were able to have guaranteed land supply or discounted public land they'd be able to deliver more housing, and it's the job of the land division to help facilitate that. The paper you've submitted, as I understand it, shows a shortfall in the revenue budget of over £1.5 million due to the expected net position on the sale of land. In other words, it's dependent on the Government selling land at market value and getting that money back to then recycle it for something else. So, can I just ask about that and its impact on the overall picture of being able to release public land for affordable housing?

In terms of the land unit, that's bringing sites forward in a range of ways, and it's about, as you know, promoting that joint working between public sector bodies to unlock the land. It's also tasked with ensuring that we make the best use of the resources available and provide a mechanism for sharing that expertise so that we can really see that concerted public sector response that we all want to see. It is identifying, purchasing and getting land ready for the development. That's complex—

Sorry, Minister, but that's not answering my question. 

So, you're question just around the land unit and how it's bringing money back—

No, that wasn't my question. I know what the land unit does. My question is: according to your draft budget, you haven't got enough money in the kitty for the land division. So, that's depending on more money coming in, presumably, so I'm assuming that you're confident that that money will come in. But, it does raise the issue that your land supply is still dependent on you getting money in to sell off land and is not doing what the sector wants you to do, which is to provide land at a discount for them to build more homes in order for you to meet your targets.

Just on the budget, as you've said, there's a negative budget of £1.5 million, and that is a net position. So, as you've said, that is the position after the income that we're expecting to receive. So, we're expecting to receive around £2.5 million to £3 million of income, which is consistent with historical trends in that space.

So, there's a shortfall. 

No, there's not a shortfall, because we've received that income historically, and we're expecting to receive it, going forward. So, the budget expenditure line number is the net position. So, if we were to disaggregate it, there would be income of around £3 million and then expenditure of £1.5 million. But, clearly, putting the two together gives it the net £1.5 million number you're seeing at a BEL level. So, it's a net position that you're seeing.

So, when all is said and done, you expect to have money in the kitty—more than you are budgeting for.

Yes, we expect to be able to spend £1.5 million to support that initiative, but the income of £3 million more than offsets that to give us a net £1.5 million, which is what you're seeing in the BEL table. 

But that does underline the point, doesn't it, that your land supply approach is dependent on generating income from the sale of land. So, it's constrained. The ability to provide land at a discount for social housing is constrained by the ability to bring money in.

There are already land sites in ownership as well—so, 27 sites covering 1,300 acres that the land division already have and are bringing forward for homes, as well as the ones we've recently seen that have been transferred into RSL and local authority ownership. So, there are already a number of sites there, and I know that the division have conducted a piece of work to look for other sites across Wales that could be acquired. It might also be useful to mention the land for housing scheme, which is the low-cost loan scheme, which is a recycled loan fund, which goes out to SMEs to help them to purchase land and low-cost loans help with viability there and bring forward land for housing as well, and that's been quite a successful scheme over the Government term as well. And we're running another round of that now. So, does that help?

So, have I got the wrong end of the stick on that then? Apologies if I have.

In what sense, sorry, Lee?

Well, is there an issue with the amount of money available to the land unit to bring forward sufficient supply of land—is it constrained by the ability to raise money, and is there enough money being put at their disposal to meet your overall need for land supply?

I think there is, when put alongside the land sites that are already in ownership and need to be transferred to bring forward more homes.

Okay, Chair, a final question, if I might, on the social rent policy. You've just set a 10-year social rent policy. The Welsh Local Government Association's evidence paper tells us that they're concerned that the new policy will not allow councils to generate sufficient income to meet the ambitions for investment in existing stock, or the development of much needed homes for social rent. So, they're quite clear that this rent policy goes against your overall objectives of increasing the number of houses and of reaching the Welsh quality housing standard. What's your response to that?

Thanks, Lee. We've done a wide-ranging piece of work on this and we've obviously spoken to people from the social housing sector and local government as well, as well as tenant representatives, which has informed our new rent standard. I think we have struck the right balance between the needs of social landlords and tenants. And I think, more generally, across the piece, the rent standard has been widely well received. But affordability is obviously paramount to us. So many of those people who we've been in touch with talked about affordability—that has been really crucial—and that's why we've been able to build important safeguards to our rent standards. So, it does mean that Welsh Ministers can intervene if circumstances require us to do so. And we also require social landlords to undertake affordability assessments as part of their annual rent-setting exercise.

We did listen to social landlords and prioritise their requests so that they can maximise all their opportunities to leverage other sources of private funding within the UK, alongside the English registered providers. Because, as you'll know, the UK Government, for England, had said that there would be a 10-year rent settlement, based on the consumer price index plus 1 per cent where September's CPI falls between 0 per cent and 3 per cent. So, we have done that 10-year standard as well. I do know that some social landlords are asking for additional flexibility to generate more income from rent convergence. So, I've committed to exploring that work further, and we will do that alongside an affordability framework that will sit alongside the rent standards. So, I'll work on developing that affordability framework at an early stage, but I'm keen to share that with you when we have more.

Okay. That wasn't the question I asked though, with respect. I understand the trade-offs you have to make between affordability and supply. I just want to be clear that that is a conscious decision you've made. And the evidence of the WLGA is that the decision you've made is going to restrict the supply and is not going to meet your ambitions for investment in stock. So, just to be clear for the committee, that's a trade-off you've consciously decided: you're putting affordability above meeting your targets.

As I say, I think it struck the right balance.

Well, that's a judgment you're making. I'm not asking about the judgment; I'm asking about the implications of the decision—it will hinder the ability to deliver the target.

Again, I think that it's that—. Like you say, you can say that it's my judgment on that, then, but I do think it's been a—. It has—

You might think it's the right judgment, but I'm just being clear that you expect that, as the WLGA tells us, to limit your ability to meet your target on supply.

Yes, go on Stuart.

Just on that, from my discussions with the sector, from what I hear, the 10-year CPI rent settlement, the positive side of that is that it gives them stability. So, they can go to the markets a lot more and say, 'Well, we've got a 10-year rent settlement now', and it allows them to borrow, helps with their gearing ratios, all those kinds of things. So, it's more than just the rent into the coffers; it gives them that sustained stability, if you like, of income, which means they can go to the financial markets and generate money, so that's a positive.

Now, the other big thing then, is that, alongside sustained high levels of funding, and whereas we've only got a one-year rollover budget here, it is sustained at those high levels that the Government has put in place over the Government term, plus a bit extra with the 2 per cent. Ideally, from an officials' perspective and the sector's perspective, as has happened over the bridge, a 10-year CPI alongside a long-term budget as well would be an even stronger package again.

So, it's that stability, if you like, as much as the income, Lee, that helps in terms of—

So, you don't dispute the WLGA point that this goes against achieving your targets in terms of the income it gives them, but you think that's compensated for by the fact that they still have stability, and they can go and find the money elsewhere.

Well, I mean, as I said, I think we've—

Summarising, that's a fair summary, yes?

We've outlined where we see it. And as I said, I think that's our position in terms of where we've come from, and having to take in account of—. You know, we've listened to local—

No, I'm just checking I've fairly summarised it, and you're not disagreeing with me.

We're just taking across all local authorities as well as others involved in all of this.

OK, I think that's it. That's where we are. So, we'd better move on to Lesley.

Chair, I just want to just check in on the impact of the building safety Bill, because the extra costs likely to flow from that are likely to fall—just to the Cabinet Secretary's point about affordability—onto tenants. And just to confirm, there's no specific cap on service charges, so do you have an assessment of the likely impact that those additional costs of building safety changes that you're legislating for might have on tenants' service charges?

Well, I know, obviously, tenants are concerned about the service charges, and I think that's why we are not imposing a cap or prescribing the amount at which service charges should be set. We have strengthened the guidance pertaining to service charges in the new rent standard, and obviously we are mindful that the statutory and regulatory requirements from the UK Government will introduce that additional complexity, and we'll need to take that into account.

In respect to the building safety Bill, social landlords have told us they're confident that they're already complying with most of the new duties. So, as a result, there shouldn't be a significant additional cost for residents in social housing. But, obviously, we are working closely with residents, leaseholders and tenant organisations, as well as fire and rescue authorities, just to make sure that the building safety Bill reflects the lived experience of those who are going to be affected by it.

Okay. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Looking at the Leasing Scheme Wales progress, so this scheme now is coming to the end of around its fourth year; I think it was a five-year scheme, with one more year to go. The target that the Welsh Government set, I think, was about 2,000 properties to be in this scheme. The information we saw in the summer was that you'd barely reached a quarter of that, and I wonder if you could first of all clarify if that's the case, and explain what work is going to be done to try and ensure that the target is reached by the end of year 5.

Diolch, Lesley. Yes, since April this year, Leasing Scheme Wales is now operating in all 22 local authorities, following a campaign around that. We've got 486 properties that have been brought onto the scheme, a further 600 are in the pipeline, and approximately 70 per cent of those properties were previously empty for six months or more. We are confident that, with continued promotion and support, we will achieve the target of 1 per cent of the PRS sector by the end of 2027.

So, I think you said 486 and then 600, so that's half of the target, but you're expecting the other 1,000 to be reached in the final year.

Yes. So, what we've found—. Yes, those are the numbers. What we have found, and when you speak to local authorities who have been implementing Leasing Scheme Wales for a while now, they say that the first few are quite difficult to do, and I think that's where they found it to be slow at the start, and then, following that, they've found a pick-up, so we have seen a trend towards that, and that's something that local authorities have shared with others who've just come on board. So, that is, like I said, something that we have seen. We have provided additional revenue investment into Leasing Scheme Wales, which we have, obviously, baselined in the draft budget and then uplifted, but our continued investment supports local authorities to help deliver the target. I don't know if any of you've seen the adverts that I see on social media—perhaps it's just me—but we are trying to sustain that. And like I say, local authorities have seen more of an increase as they've gone on, rather than—. I think the first few are the most difficult.

Yes, I appreciate that. I just think, for four years to cover 1,000 and then to get 1,000 in the fifth year is a bit ambitious, particularly when you've only given—and I understand why—the 2 per cent uplift. I appreciate that all the local authorities are signed up now. I think it took a little while to make sure that they were all part of it.

Yes.

I just wonder what work you're doing with landlords as well, to incentivise them to become part of the scheme.

So, as part of our White Paper on adequate housing and fair rents and affordability, we did consult on a proposal to provide a refund of the highest residential rates of land transaction tax, where a private landlord buys a dwelling and leases it to a local authority through Leasing Scheme Wales. So, the Cabinet Secretary for finance did confirm in Plenary on 14 October that he'll introduce a new refund on the higher residential rates of the land transaction tax through the leasing scheme.

So, we're continuing to work closely with local authorities to identify suitable properties, and those financial incentives include those improvement grants of up to £25,000 for longer leases. And that scheme, as you know, offers guaranteed rent for property management and reduces that risk for landlords and provides security for tenants. Alongside the campaign that we've been doing to promote Leasing Scheme Wales, I've also spoken to people who've been supported, or landlords who have passed on to Leasing Scheme Wales, and I think sometimes some of the messaging comes better from those people who've been affected, rather than Government. So, I'm keen to explore how we can get more of those landlords, such as somebody I met in Wrexham, actually, who was very pleased to speak about the benefits of Leasing Scheme Wales as a landlord who'd worked with the local authority—. I think those voices will be a lot stronger in helping us to get that message out to others.

Okay, thank you. I heard your earlier answers to Lee around empty homes, but we're still seeing far too many empty homes right across the country. I know, certainly in my own constituency, we've got far too many when you look at people who are waiting for houses. So, I heard what you said to Lee around progress et cetera, but you said earlier this year that Welsh Government were considering reviewing the scheme, and the reason that you were thinking of reviewing the scheme was because of barriers to accessing the funding, how the applications were made, and obviously those empty homes not coming back into use. So, I was just wondering if you'd undertaken that review. And I'd also be interested in what you think the barriers are to those empty homes.

Again, this is something obviously we've all been concerned about. I completely agree that we need to be pushing as far as we can on empty homes. As I say, it's not just the empty homes grant, there are other programmes that we have. That's why I did commission that independent evaluation of the grant, just so we could hear first-hand from those people who have found that how they've gone through the process. Again, I think one of the key messages—. That's published today. One of those key messages has been that some progress has been made, but obviously there's more that we can do. Some of the things that I have heard a bit about have been around having more increased flexibility around eligibility requirements, again, the issue around dedicated staff—we heard that from Caerphilly last week, and how much that's helped, just to speed up the overall process—and also some other things around expectations of applicants in terms of the timescales. But I don't know if there's anything anyone else would like to add to that.  

I can add a little bit to it. The 10 per cent capital contribution for local authorities sometimes is an issue, and we know that some—. I think there are still five local authorities that don't take part in the grant specifically. So, that's something we should review. We're due to give advice to the Cabinet Secretary on options to extend the scheme and any kind of interim changes we'll make on the back of the work that's been done. Furnished versus unfurnished properties, I think that's something we need to definitely look at, and also whether we should align the definition of 'empty' for the scheme with the tax definition of six months rather than 12. That opens up lots more properties and could unlock more. There are quite a lot of things in there. That's just a few, I think, to my mind, that would be good to consider.

When you get the advice from officials, Cabinet Secretary, will you be informing Members whether there's been a change to criteria? Stuart just mentioned around the 10 per cent contribution, which I certainly have encountered as a barrier in my own constituency, so will you be doing an update for Members? 

Absolutely. I'll make sure that we have either a written statement or an oral statement, and we'll write to the committee as well.

Okay. I really do think this is such an important issue that the Welsh Government needs to get it right. Just finally, on Help to Buy—Wales, obviously Wales is the only part of Great Britain that now has this scheme. I think it's fair to say that some parts of the sector really like it, others not so much. We don't just give it for first-time buyers in Wales either, and that's caused, I think, a bit of a mixed reaction as well. So, perhaps you could just say what you're considering for the future of Help to Buy, please.

I think the scheme is needed, and that's why I've allocated money in this budget and made that extension to it. Obviously, a future extension would be a matter for the next Government. I know that at the moment officials have been considering all potential changes for the scheme, particularly things like the price cap and looking at the research around that. In terms of the issue around it not being restricted to first-time buyers, just to say that the scheme is available to those who need it. But since April 2022, 85 per cent of those people who have used Help to Buy—Wales have been first-time buyers, so that has been something that is positive as well. 

Just to give a bit of history, which you may well know, the price cap was reviewed at intervals. In 2021, it was lowered to £250,000, reflecting a policy change at the time. But then it was increased back up to £300,000 in 2023, following the evidence of the increase in house prices. But statistics published on 2 October show that there were 159 purchases using the Help to Buy—Wales scheme in the first quarter of 2025-26, and more than 50 developers, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, are signed up and benefiting from those new customers.

So, there won't be any changes to the scheme before May of next year. 

No.

Okay, thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Lesley. Lee Waters.

[Inaudible.]—just the numbers on the assumptions you have. This is on building safety. We know that your building safety capital has been causing problems, for a number of years, to be spent, and it was again reprofiled last year, which means you can't spend the money that you've allocated. This year again—. I think, last year, you managed to allocate just under £242 million, but you're budgeting it this time for £375 million. Given that you've historically struggled to spend this budget line, why are you allocating a third more than you were able to spend last year?

This budget is, obviously, something where we're identifying and delivering safety remediation. It is complex, and it also depends on a highly trained workforce as well. There are 78 buildings in various stages of investigations at the moment, and scoping, and it's anticipated that work should start in at least half of the buildings in the 2026-27 financial year. The building safety fund is a demand-led programme. We have reprofiled the budgets, as you say, according to the applications of support received and the project delivery profiles, and our intention is to reprofile our budget lines to maximise the impact of the total budget available.

It does mean that we will cover all of the building safety-related expenditure in-year, subject to decisions on priorities, but that means that we are able to deploy the balances to support delivery of more homes, which we have done in the reprofiling last year. But we are committed to supporting remediation progress and making sure that we've got that pace. So, it is there, but, obviously, over the last few years, we've got used to seeing what that profile looks like. So, it is demand-led.

Do you think, then, that you're going to spend roughly a third more than you've been spending in the last year, or are you budgeting just in case?

The money is there to make sure that they can be remediated. Again, we will look at that as we're going on to see whether we do need to reprofile it, as we have done. But the money is there and has been allocated to make sure that if work can go ahead, it will.

It's not a very good way of budgeting, though, is it, to constantly have to reprofile and put in figures that you don't think are real. 

Well, again, it's quite a complex part, and it's not just dependent on us. It's dependent on the workforce, where we've got the plans and how things are coming in. We've got better at doing it, as you'll know, from the start. We didn't have as much information, so the budget was allocated, there was an allocation made, and that was reprofiled, but we are getting better at it. The key message is that the money is there to do the work, but, obviously, we can adapt if we need to. And as you've seen, then, we've put that money and reprofiled it into more homes this year.

Okay, but it’s very hard to scrutinise figures that even you don't expect to be real, but you're putting them in there just to send a signal, knowing you can just reallocate them as the year goes on. I note that one of the reasons you just gave there for the failure to spend that money is workforce shortages, which sounds at variance to the evidence you're giving us for the building safety Bill, where you're telling us that workforce shortages aren't going to be an issue.

It's just around the—. Again, it's just about every—. In terms of the remediation, and remediation of buildings, they're all sort of—. They're all different, at different points. Again, they're all complex. Some have some very small reasons—they might seem small reasons—why they can't go at pace. There's a lot of people involved in it. I'm keen to push it as much as we can at pace, but sometimes it could be down to one thing that we need to get to the bottom of. It's not as simple as just saying, 'Here's the money, somebody's going to remediate.' There are a lot of moving parts within that. As I say, we've got better at understanding what the budget profile will be, but we have to—. If that budget's there, we need to look to spend the money in areas that we have done this year, where we reprofiled it into more homes.

Okay. I think we'll have to move on. We have 15 minutes left and we've still got several questions. Peter Fox. 

Just a few questions. They'll be on decarbonisation, housing standards and adaptations. We noted in your evidence paper there was no mention of the Welsh housing survey. I just wonder if you could give us an update on that. How much is this going cost, and will there be any costs in next year's budget? 

Thank you, Peter. In May, I provided a written statement on the business case that had been approved to undertake the Welsh housing survey in 2027-28. Officials are developing a detailed tender specification, so that a procurement exercise can commence by the end of 2025-26. That will enable field work to be carried out in 2027-28, with headline results available from 2028-29 and more detailed findings from 2029-30. Subject to the final specification, costs are expected to be in the region of £2.5 million and £3.2 million, with the bulk of expenditure being incurred in the 2027-28 year. They have been included in budget estimates for 2026-27 onwards. But the final cost is going to be dependent on the sample size recommended to achieve the best results and the survey methodology, such as if it's going to be online or in person.

So, the 2026-27 costs, they're factored in the budget.

Yes.

Okay, so we can find those. Great. Thanks. We understand that your equivalent to Awaab’s law currently has no costings against it. I just wondered what the timescale for implementation is that you're working to on that. How much is this expected to cost, and what will come in 2027-28?

Thanks, Peter. Landlords have an ongoing responsibility to maintain homes set out in their tenancy agreements and landlord and tenant legislation. Legislation includes our Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, and that places a duty on all landlords to ensure their dwellings are fit for human habitation with a requirement to address any issues of damp, mould growth and other hazards

The Welsh housing quality standard sets out the quality of social homes across Wales and how that should be met by all social landlords. WHQS does include a requirement, continued from the previous standard, for all homes to be free from damp and mould, and that acknowledges, obviously, the impact that that has on health, mental health and social well-being.

We have had a consultation to respond to that, and that's the consultation on WHQS 2023. That closed on 20 June 2025. We'll be analysing the responses, and the final proposals will be set out now in the coming weeks. Again, we can make sure the committee has information on that. We can keep you informed on those responses.

Thanks for that. The last one from me, Chair: when do you intend to publish the route-map for the decarbonisation of homes in Wales, and do you anticipate any additional costs again in this 2026-27 budget?

Thanks, Peter. We've considered the report our statutory advisers provided to us in May alongside the report submitted by the decarbonisation implementation group, an advisory group that was set up by the previous Minister for climate change. Obviously, any action we take in Wales is strongly influenced by UK Government policies in reserved areas. We are keen to understand how the up-and-coming warm homes Bill and warm homes plan, both in terms of the £13 billion budget and the other enabling policies, will impact on Wales before finalising our route-map. We had hoped that the warm homes plan would be published by now. I did discuss it with the new Minister, Martin McCluskey, last week. He is aiming to publish the plan before the end of this year. We agreed at our last meeting that we would meet in the days following the publication of the plan so that he and his officials can make sure that we are well briefed on that and its implication for Wales. Obviously, given that time, we're going to need to analyse the impact of the plan and our route-map, and any implications associated with consequential funding. It is likely that publishing the route-map will be a decision for the next Government, but officials are developing options for the residential decarbonisation section of the next emissions reduction plan. That will set out the steps for the period 2026-30.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Peter. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks ever so much for coming in this morning—I was going to say ‘to give evidence’, but to be interviewed, I suppose. Just something I wanted to touch upon, Jayne, if it's okay, is something you mentioned right at the start. You mentioned the work that you've been doing with Care & Repair in terms of housing adaptation. I know that Care & Repair Cymru have long advocated for a safety net grant with hazardous disrepair. I was just wondering if I could get an idea of the Welsh Government's view on that. They allege that, basically, there's a funding and policy gap, especially for the elderly, in terms of making those repairs to their homes that sometimes arise in emergency situations. I just wanted to get your ideas on that. 

Yes. Thank you, Joel. Obviously, we are very much aware of concerns around homes in a poor state of repair. We continue to meet with Care & Repair, who do a really important job, to discuss any gaps in provision and how these needs could be met. Just to say, if anyone is unable to pay for essential repairs on their home, they can apply for a home improvement loan, which local authorities deliver with Welsh Government funding. Interest-free loans of up to £35,000 are available to those who are eligible, and the loans can pay for work to make homes warm and safe. Just to say, the older people's commissioner has contacted me to enquire whether our Nest scheme can be used to carry out repairs, but I have explained that the scope of our Nest scheme is around energy efficiency and low-carbon heating. It isn't designed to deliver major repairs or deal with unsafe buildings. But the Nest scheme does allow for some ancillary work for up to 10 per cent of the value of energy efficiency measures. So, just as an example, funds can be made available for small repairs to a roof ahead of fitting solar photovoltaics, but we wouldn't fund a whole roof repair. There are certain things available, but it's not for the Nest scheme really.

Could you see the Welsh Government supporting a hazardous disrepair grant, then? 

I think we have to remember that homes can be viewed as an asset to borrow against, so we don't believe it's appropriate to offer grant schemes to carry out repairs. But, as I say, we do meet with Care & Repair regularly to see if there are any gaps in that funding. I very much know this is something that Care & Repair raise.

All right. Thank you. My second question is on the Warm Homes programme. I used to sit on the Equality and Social Justice Committee and I left as they were doing their report on the Warm Homes programme, and they said, if I remember rightly from reading the report, if the Welsh Government continued at this pace, it wouldn't be finished until about 2160. Well, we'll all be long gone by then. I often say I hope to try and live forever, or die trying, really. That's not very good, is it, really, if you think about it? I just wanted to get an idea of the justification for only a 2 per cent uplift, especially given that the report was quite damning. Linking with that, I know there's been a lot of work happening in England in terms of the Warm Homes schemes that they've been doing. Obviously, then, we would get Barnett consequentials. Are they being utilised for the same things in Wales, or are they being spent on different things, if that makes sense?

That's the old catch-22, isn't it—live forever or die trying? The Nest scheme isn't the only solution available in Wales to tackle fuel poverty. It does sit alongside the energy company obligation scheme, which operates across the UK and is funded by energy suppliers. Our optimised retrofit program is improving the energy of social homes. For tenants living in the private rented sector, the UK Government has consulted on the minimum energy efficiency standards. But we are working with the Welsh Local Government Association on leveraging as much funding into Wales through those GB-wide schemes, to ensure that support is available for those most in need. An example of that is the ECO Flex scheme that's available in every local authority in Wales. That will ensure broad access to the scheme for residents, and that Welsh householders get their fair share of the funding.

So, we are looking to leverage in those UK schemes, but I do acknowledge and I very much share the committee's—and your former committee as well—concerns around fuel poverty. Again, it's something that we recognise within the draft budget. The draft budget is just the beginning of the process, and a lot could change between now and January.

So, with that then, you said that, obviously, the draft budget is a draft. Would you be advocating for a higher uplift to Warm Homes—higher than the 2 per cent? 

As I say, we have to look across all the priorities, really, within this. We're trying to leverage in that UK-wide funding as well, which I think is really important to make sure that we have our share of that across Wales. But, as I said, we also need to look at the Warm Homes plan, which hasn't been published yet, and look to see the details of the funding across that intervention and how it will be split between financial years as well. So, there's a lot there, and I think that's something in terms of the budget discussions that are ongoing at the moment with all parties.

So, with that, then, you mentioned the Warm Homes plan. Will the consequentials be spent on Warm Homes plans in Wales?

In terms of the consequential money from the Warm Homes plan, which hasn't been published yet, we don't have the details. We'll look forward to seeing those funding aspects, and how they'll be split between financial years at the time, but—

Do you have any idea how much that could be? 

I think it's £13 billion at a UK level, isn't it? But we don't have any other information, as I say. I met with the Minister last week and he's committed to meeting me as soon as the Warm Homes plan is published.

I'm conscious of the time, but I've got one question. Do we have time for that? 

Yes, I think so. 

Perfect. So, the last one, really, touches upon what we briefly talked about with the statement on Tuesday, in terms of the Welsh Government's plan for retrofitting social homes. I just wanted to get an update on that in terms of the Welsh Government's approach to identifying and then meeting the costs. Also, I know, in their written evidence, that Community Housing Cymru mentioned the amalgamating of the optimised retrofit programme with funding to support the Wales housing quality standard. They allege that that's what the Welsh Government's going to do, and I just want to get some clarification on that, if that's okay.

Yes. Thank you, Joel. In 2024-25, we provided £256 million to improve existing social homes, including energy efficiency, through a mixture of grant and loan funding. And that optimised retrofit programme, ORP, has a budget of £93 million this year and is fully committed. I'm going to be receiving advice from officials on next year's budget for ORP shortly, and we will aim to provide some certainty to the sector before the Christmas recess.

Perfect. And that's when we'll get a better idea on that amalgamation, then.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, Joel. Okay. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you very much to your officials for coming in to give evidence to the committee this morning. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy.

Diolch. We'll make sure that things are shared with you, Chair, that were suggested. See you next week.

Thank you very much.

Our third item is papers to note. We have several papers to note before us today. Is committee content to note those papers? I see that you are. Thank you very much.

Our next item, item 4, is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. Is committee content to do so? You are. We will, then, move to private session.