Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

That takes us on to item 2, Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill, evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government. Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary, Jayne Bryant? Can you introduce your officials, or can they introduce themselves?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll let my officials introduce themselves. Sarah.

Thank you. Sarah Rhodes, deputy director of homes and people in Welsh Government.

Hannah Fisher, head of homelessness prevention legislation.

Thank you.

Julie Stokes, legal services.

If I can start, are you satisfied that the Bill is within the legislative competence of the Senedd?

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and thank you for having us this afternoon. Subject to receiving the Minister of the Crown's consent for just a small number of provisions, I am confident that this Bill firmly falls within legislative competence.

When do you expect to get those consents?

Well, obviously, we've been in discussion with colleagues, and we agree with the Llywydd, first of all, that sections 14, 21, 22 and 32 require Minister of the Crown consents. So, we wrote to Secretary of State for Wales on 1 April to seek those Minister of the Crown consents for those sections, and my colleagues and my officials are working closely with the Wales Office and UK Government departments to manage the consents process. Obviously, we're in regular contact with them. We know that the discussions overall have been really positive, and those discussions continue, and, obviously, I will update the committee on the progress of that.

Thank you very much. The explanatory memorandum is silent with regard to human rights. What consideration have you given to human rights when preparing this Bill?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Well, as with all Senedd Bill proposals, Welsh Government carries out a full human rights assessment before the introduction. We are satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are compliant. The provisions of the Bill have reasonable foundation, do strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of individuals' fundamental rights.

Diolch yn fawr. Sam.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. There are some divergences between the Welsh Government's White Paper and the Bill introduced to the Senedd. So, why didn't you publish a draft of the Bill for consultation before introduction?

Diolch, Sam. Perhaps it would be helpful just to talk about the breadth and the depth of the engagement that we had over a prolonged period, including formal consultation, extensive stakeholder engagement and input from people with lived experience—350 people with lived experience—and a further consultation on a draft Bill was not considered necessary. So, we didn't consult on a draft version of the Bill because the provisions in the Bill closely align with the proposals set out in our White Paper, and, as I said, that was subject to that comprehensive, inclusive consultation process.

The Bill also reflects the proposals set out in the White Paper and in the evidence of the expert review panel. It's been subject to significant work over several years, undertaken in close partnership with stakeholders, and, as I say, with people with lived experience. So, our explanatory memorandum sets out how we've responded to the consultation and the resulting changes in the Bill, and, where changes have been made between the White Paper and the Bill, they relate to responses to feedback provided in the consultation or to address issues that came up during our drafting process.

But you think you've done sufficient consultation and engagement on this, so you would dispute those that are saying that you're doing this quickly rather than doing it correctly?

No, we are doing it correctly. As I said, it has been undertaken over a long period of time. In fact, it's probably approaching 10 years of discussion, but, since 2018, obviously we've had very detailed discussions. We've really been on a journey with stakeholders throughout this as well, and there's been really close engagement with officials through it. Perhaps I could just ask officials to perhaps talk a little bit about that engagement that you've had over a number of years.

Of course. As the Minister says, key to this Bill is the engagement of 350 people with lived experience of homelessness. We undertook that work in partnership with Cymorth Cymru and Tai Pawb to ensure that all of the development work of this Bill was rooted in that lived experience, and as part of that we did some targeted reaching work to communities traditionally underserved by homelessness services. So, we tried to speak to asylum-seeking people, for example, to care leavers, to people in prisons, to people in refuge, so that we could really try and create the fullest picture or the fullest evidence that we could for this Bill.

You'll also be aware that the Bill is grounded very much in the recommendations of an expert review panel chaired by Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick. That panel worked for a year in partnership with us undertaking detailed assessment of our legislation, but international legislation as well, and made recommendations to us around how legislation should be changed—quite specific recommendations around legislative change to prevent homelessness.

Throughout the consultation, we've also undertaken quite extensive stakeholder engagement. I won't reel off all the things, but a key delivery partner for us here is, of course, local authorities, so we've been to see every single local authority in Wales and been through the White Paper with them in some detail to understand how this works for the specific local authority demographic, for community need et cetera, so that we could really understand that differing need across Wales.

We've done bespoke engagement with social housing tenants. We've done bespoke engagement with RSLs, with the third sector, with front-line professionals, to really draw together stakeholder views on this Bill and what it should include.

Thank you. And then moving on, in terms of the Bill's accessibility, do you think it's easy for a reader to understand? Did you ask Welsh Government drafters to consider substituting Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 with a new Part 2 rather than amend each section in the way the Bill has been drafted?

Thank you. Yes, amending the existing legislation just makes it clear what the proposed changes are and what will stay the same. Replacing Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act was considered, but, on balance, a drafting choice, really, was made to amend that Part 2. But, once the legislation is in force, all readers will be able to access a comprehensive version of Part 2 as amended. So, we have really looked at this, and, as I say, it was mainly a drafting choice that was made there.

So, if that's the case, that you could just have the non-amended or the original Part 2 next to your amended Part 2 and see the differences between them, is it just for your clarity or for the reader's clarity that that decision was made, rather than inserting a newly drafted Part 2?

Yes, as I say, it was considered, but it is also important to note that the Bill doesn't just amend the 2014 Act; it also amends the Housing Act 1996, and, to a lesser extent, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 as well. But, as I said, this was a decision at drafting stage in terms of how we were looking at that. Sarah.

Yes, just to add to what the Cabinet Secretary was saying, local authorities are familiar with the existing legislation, so having an amending Bill we think should enable smoother implementation, because it's easier to see where the amendments have been made. But, as the Cabinet Secretary has said as well, once the legislation is in force, then everyone—readers, local authorities et cetera—will be able to access a comprehensive version of the legislation on the legislation.gov website.

Diolch.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary.

Adam—rwyt ti'n nesaf.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, a phrynhawn da, Ysgrifennydd Cabinet. A oeddwn i wedi'ch clywed chi'n iawn? Oeddech chi wedi dweud bod datblygiad y ddeddfwriaeth yma, o ran datblygiad polisi, wedi cymryd yn agos i ddegawd?

I think the discussions around this were happening many years ago. I know that from 2018 is where the real policy development has really taken place. I think that discussions were happening years before that in terms of how we wanted to take this policy forward, because we know that the system that we have at the moment is the most expensive, not just financially, but in terms of human cost and putting people towards crisis.

We know doing nothing is not an option in this area. It's taken a long time in the developmental stage in those discussions with all sectors involved in this, and importantly, with homeless people who've had lived experience, which is really invaluable, to say the least, as to their involvement. So, it has taken a number of years to get to this stage. I think that engagement that we continually have is really important.

Bearing that in mind, is it slightly disappointing that some of the main elements of this legislation in terms of its impact—for example, the priority need and intentionality tests—and the process of removing those elements is not going to begin until 2030-31, so into the next decade?

We very much recognise that the use of priority need and intentionality tests has really declined significantly across Wales, particularly since COVID, and we had the policy changes there as well. In fact, many local authorities have effectively moved away from applying them in practice. We had the 'no-one left out' approach, which really demonstrated that a more inclusive system is possible and desirable.

We know that while practice has changed, removing these tests from legislation isn't a symbolic act. It really is about structural reform that does require the entire system to be ready for everyone who presents as homeless, regardless of their situation. So, there's still a lot to do there, and I do understand we all want things to happen as quickly as possible. It's definitely saying this system really needs change. Doing nothing isn't an option. But there is time within that, and that's what some of the discussions that we've had with the sector more widely as to how we can implement this have been really important.

Just to say, we're not waiting for 2031 either to start everything. We've already been working with local authorities to prepare for the change, and there have been some really, really good examples that I've seen when I've been out and about in Wales, listening to local authorities who've restructured internally within their system, which has been really effective. They're preparing for this legislation. And one of the benefits of the long development of this has been that local authorities and others have seen what we're trying to get to, and importantly, taking them with us.

But I do recognise there's need for a phased approach with this legislation. So, I've been really clear, and that's come through with discussions we have had with local authorities. The first point I see would be embedding those preventative duties and multi-agency working at the start, and then moving on to more of those areas such as full removal of priority need and intentionality tests coming a bit later, but again, working with local authorities.

But I just want to be clear that the 2031 date within the regulatory impact assessment is not about delaying anything. It's about making sure that we've got that effective way of doing it in a properly balanced way in that phased approach, so that we have got the time to do this and to take those authorities with us.

You are shutting off the possibility, therefore, of implementing those two elements that I named sooner. You don't think that that's possible. You're saying that they can't be implemented until at least 2030-31. Does that mean that it could be delayed further? Do you believe, or accept, what some say, namely that there should be a fixed, clear timetable for the implementation of those relevant elements? You've just said that you believe that there should be a graduated, phased timetable. Well, why not set out a clear, specific timetable for those elements that we've discussed, rather than saying, 'Well, at least until 2030-31', which creates uncertainty as to whether those two elements that I've focused on will be implemented during that year?

Thank you, Adam. We've used the 2030-31 dates just to aid in planning the cost implementation of the Bill, but exact timescales and the phased approach that I mention still needs to be agreed, and that's in discussion with our local authorities as well. As I said, I feel that, as I mentioned, we should do that preventative side to start off with in terms of the priority need, and remove intentionality later. That's what I'm minded to do. But it's just important to look at it in that way, to try to tackle the pressures in the system at the moment, because the system that we have is pushing everybody to that crisis point. We need to try and take the pressure out of the system, and that's why that preventative side would come in first. But just to confirm that the 2030-31 date is just helping with the planning cost, but the exact timescale and the phasing of it does need to be agreed with local authorities, who are our key delivery partners in this.

According to your policy and in your view, and in terms of your recommendation, the implementation of this Act will take us not only through the next Senedd, but beyond the next Senedd into the eighth Senedd. There could be several political changes. Who knows what the make-up of the seventh Senedd's Government will be? Who knows, again, what the political situation will be by the time of the eighth Senedd?

In terms of the evaluation, do you see an argument, therefore, for setting a duty to hold an evaluation, rather than a commitment in terms of policy from you? Because if you go over one Senedd term, do you think that having an evaluation according to the timetable that you've set out—? Should there be a duty set out, so that the different Governments that might be in power over that period will have to face the same requirement to evaluate every different element of the implementation of this legislation that will cover a period of five years up to whenever into the eighth Senedd?

These are big, important changes that we're making, as I say, to a system that we know really does need changing. We've been doing this, and we've been part of trying to ensure that we get this system right for the future, which is crucial, by having all these discussions and the work that's gone on to date. I'm absolutely committed to evaluation. That's very important to me, and us, obviously. We do acknowledge the issue around data, for example, how it's important that we have accurate data. Work is going on at the moment to ensure that we've got improvement around our data collection and that that aligns to the Bill and to strengthen the data that we currently have.

We are looking to replace aggregate data collection with individual level data collection as well, which will help us to follow an individual's journey through the homelessness system and will also help us in terms of monitoring and evaluating the impacts of our reforms, and hopefully to see how we will help with the prevention rates and relief for homelessness. It's also going to provide us with a rolling mechanism with which to assess the implementation of the Bill, particularly in relation to our RIA core scenario. But I am obviously very happy to reflect on any additional measures necessary through the next stages of scrutiny in terms of evaluation as well. I do recognise how important that is and, as you say, the length of time taken. So, I'm happy to reflect on that as well, after the committee has as well.

Iawn. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

The new regulation-making power, as inserted by section 35 of the Bill, will enable the Welsh Ministers to decide what classes of persons are or are not qualifying persons for social housing in their area. Could you explain why the annulment procedure has been chosen for this power and why you consider that this is appropriate?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. The bodies to which the duty applies are listed in the Bill, and the regulation-making power is sought to enable Welsh Ministers to update the list in the future. The flexibility is required so that the list of public bodies subject to the duties remains current. The Bill provides local authorities with discretion to set their own rules about who qualifies for an allocation of social housing. That power is subject to constraints. But, again, I'm very happy to reflect on the committee's thoughts on this as well.

I'm almost drifting out of the area that I should be talking about, so if you don't want to answer this, don't, but isn't there a likelihood that Cardiff, with a very large number of people homeless, very large numbers of people seeking accommodation, will have stricter rules than, let us say, Merthyr, which has a much lower proportion of its population in the same position?

Again, we trust local authorities in terms of their decision, but this section gives us the power to ensure that people aren't excluded. That's what we're looking to do within this mechanism. I don't know if, Sarah, you wanted to add anything to that.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. The regulation-making power here is to give the Welsh Ministers the ability to specify who qualifying persons for social housing are, to ensure that people who Ministers would not want excluded are not. And if there were, as you've alluded to, differing positions taken across local authorities and certain groups were excluded that the Welsh Government and Ministers wouldn't wish to be excluded from social housing, it enables Ministers to bring forward regulations to ensure that persons can be added as qualifying persons for social housing.

I will continue this when we have the main debate on it. I'm drifting out of what I should be talking about and people are going to tell—[Interruption.] Go ahead. Sorry, Jayne.

I was just going to say that we are happy to reflect on this aspect, but appreciate that our intention is to ensure that people aren't excluded from the system. But we're very happy to reflect on that as well.

With regard to section 38 of the Bill, which makes provision for housing registers, regulations made under new section 160D and 160E can confer functions on the local housing authorities. Why do you consider it appropriate that such regulations should be subject to the annulment procedure?

We're working with local authorities and housing providers to determine the design and key functions of both registers, drawing on that best practice in order to support local authorities in their implementation. The regulation-making powers will enable us to use this information to specify further requirements in relation to both registers. This will ensure that registers operate as effectively as possible and to deliver the aim of, obviously, improving social housing allocation. It does provide us with flexibility, which is needed given the varied approach to social housing registers and allocation systems across Wales at the moment, and it'll enable us to implement changes quickly if needed. Given the technical nature of these regulations, I am satisfied that the annulment procedure is appropriate and consistent with similar existing powers relating to the allocation of social housing accommodation.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Sam.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Moving on to the duty to 'ask and act', the Bill includes duties on specified public authorities to 'ask and act'. Why is the regulation-making power in section 21 for the Welsh Ministers to amend this list of bodies needed? Could the Welsh Government not have finalised the list on the face of the Bill?

Public services change over time, so that's why we have the flexibility so that list of public bodies remains current and does reflect the changing profile of public services. The regulation-making power will be subject to the approval procedure, and, as such, the Senedd will be provided with the opportunity to consider and vote on any proposed regulations.

Thank you, because in your evidence to the Local Government and Housing Committee, you explained that a similar duty to 'ask and act' may be imposed on some primary care services by amending GP contracts. Now, that's quite a big deal, given that GP contracts are often debated in the Senedd Chamber. So, how are you going to ensure that any changes will be done in a way where Members will be afforded the opportunity to properly scrutinise any of those duties in a change to the contracts?

Diolch, Sam, and just to clarify, I didn't set out to the committee that we were making changes to the GP contracts. Primary care contracted services are not included in the Bill, because they're not public bodies. Obviously, NHS Wales has a different contractually based relationship with this element of the health service. But we do recognise how important a role primary care services do play in homelessness, and work is under way with health services to meet our policy objectives outside of that legislation.

I have written to the Local Government and Housing Committee following the evidence session, just to provide a further update on the work that colleagues are doing with health colleagues in this area, and perhaps it'd be useful, if it's helpful, Cadeirydd, if we provided you with the same note, if that was useful to the committee.

That would be very useful.

Yes. So, we can certainly share that just around some of those conversations that are happening with our primary care colleagues.

Thank you very much. So, my understanding is that you mentioned in that committee that it may be brought forward, but there was no answer from yourself there on the scrutiny afforded to Members then, should it be brought forward in the future. I'm just wondering if you could explain or expand on future scrutiny opportunities for changes, if changes do come forward.

My role in the GP contracts negotiations is probably incredibly limited in anything like that, but, Sarah.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Just to reiterate what the Cabinet Secretary was saying in terms of—. We are trying to achieve our policy outcomes outside of the legislation, so that's the work that we're doing with health at the moment, and the note that we'll provide will set that out. In terms of any potential amendments to the 'ask and act' duty and the list of bodies on that, the regs-making power is subject to what's now the approvals process, so it would require that any changes to the list there would be subject to Senedd scrutiny.

Thank you, that's helpful. Sticking with your evidence to the Local Government and Housing Committee, a quote from yourself or one of your officials was,

'Police officers carry an individual duty that is quite different to that of a social worker or a probation officer',

and added that you haven't yet worked through all the drafting implications of that. Your official said that you

'hope to bring forward amendments at a later stage.'

I was just wondering if you could clarify where you are with this and at what stage those changes will be made.

Yes. In terms of the police, officials continue to develop our policy. Again, that’s in discussion with UK Government in relation to the role of policing and 'ask and act', and that’s including our work on Minister of the Crown consents, so those discussions, as I say, are ongoing. At the moment, I'm unable to indicate when we might be in a position to make potential amendments, but I can assure you that we'll work as quickly and as effectively as we can on the matter. So, we'll keep the committee updated as well.

Brilliant. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You mentioned there discussions, I'm just wondering, have police and crime commissioners been consulted on this, or has anybody within the police force—chief constables, et cetera—been consulted, or is that part of the wider discussion you're having with the UK Government?

Yes. In terms of PCCs, officials have had discussions with colleagues there, but we also have a technical briefing for PCCs this week, I believe, as well. So, there are discussions that are ongoing with PCCs. I don't know if there's anything further that officials would like to just elaborate on in terms of discussions with police colleagues.

Yes. We have done some testing and engagement with operational policing in Wales, and we also run a long-standing post-custody accommodation working group on which the police are represented. But we have specifically, on the provisions in the Bill, engaged with policing in Wales, and we'll continue to do so.

Yes, thank you. And finally, no Senedd scrutiny procedure is in place for the guidance that the Welsh Ministers may issue under section 21(3). Do you consider that this guidance should be subject to the draft annulment procedure?

The guidance procedure in relation to the duty to 'ask and act' will provide operational or practical assistance; it will not impose a new legal obligation. So, the absence of Senedd scrutiny reflects the nature of the guidance as an administrative tool rather than a legislative instrument, and that is consistent. So, yes, happy there.

Thank you.

Okay. Diolch. Adam.

Can you explain the changes that you intend to make, if this Bill is passed, to the local connection to Wales test?

Diolch, Adam. Yes. As I mentioned earlier, it was a long engagement that we had with stakeholders on this, but considerable concerns were raised through the consultation and the engagement period regarding the proposed changes to local connection, because obviously it's a key tool for local authorities, and their resources are focused on people in communities. So, in bringing forward this Bill, we are creating a real divergence from the system in other parts of the UK. It obviously has, I believe, significant benefits, but we've got to be really careful not to create unintended consequences by making these changes. It's crucial that we show we can make the changes in this Bill, and the resources that are required for the changes, that benefit the people of Wales.

Section 6 of the Bill introduces that new local connection test, which will determine whether someone's entitled to the main homelessness duty. That is, if they or a member of their household do not have any local connection to the area of a local housing authority in Wales, they will not be entitled to that duty. The duty will still apply to those at risk of abuse, and any other category of a person that may be prescribed in regulation, and that will be important in ensuring that homelessness services are focused on people in Wales and in our communities.

The Bill, as you'll know, will enable Welsh Ministers to prescribe categories of people who are not subject to that local connection test, and the Bill retains the current definition of local connection, but section 12 of the Bill contains regulation-making powers that will help us add detail to definitions in partnership with stakeholders. So, the powers allow us to reconsider the scope and function of local connection over time, and I do hope that that will offer a route for assisting particular groups who encounter connections in the future, such as, potentially, veterans or care leavers. Currently, local connection should only be considered where a local authority is of the view that an individual should be referred to another local authority for assistance. It is not used to determine whether someone is owed a duty by an authority. So, they are the changes.

Would it not be better to identify some of the additional categories that you foresee will be exempted from that local connection provision, on the face of the Bill, so that there's clarity and certainty?

Again, just to say, it's around the complexities of how the system works across border. We know that, obviously, we've got—. Historically, the system has been very similar between the rest of the UK. Obviously, we've got a long and porous border, and I just believe that this way will enable local authorities, and the system that we have, to protect people and to support people that we have here in our communities in Wales. We believe that we've got changes to make in relation to the tests around prevention, allocations. They are really transformative ways forward. They're going to make a real difference. But I've got to ensure that our system can sustain our intended practice.

Our White Paper did consider the impact of local connection tests for certain groups, including young people, for example. But, just to be clear, the White Paper didn't propose particular exemptions for those groups as specific exemptions to a local connection referral; it did propose further consideration how special circumstances criteria could be applied to those groups. But I think, this way, we've been able to listen to the feedback from local authorities throughout the development of the Bill, which I think has been really important in how we've been able to take the Bill forward. As I said, there's been a lot going on in terms of the development of this, but I think it's also important we listen to the feedback from that, and this came across very clearly from the feedback.

But you don't accept—. So, there are categories of people and then there are certain groups that have specific special circumstances, but you don't accept that it would be better to identify certain groups that would be exempt. That's the term, isn't it?

Yes.

Not the special circumstances, but the—. Had you considered adding specific groups to the face of the Bill and then seeing how that worked—doing it the other way around—and then getting rid of those exemptions, if necessary?

As I said, this is something that we and officials had long discussions over how we could look at taking this forward. We have retained the current definition of local connection. The Bill sets out that regulation-making power that can help us to add detail to the definition in partnership with stakeholders. So, the power will allow us to reconsider the scope and function of local connection over time. Obviously, that has to be done very carefully.

I think, again, our system will be quite different here in Wales, and I think having that time, again, listening to local authorities, making sure that we get this right in the most sensitive way that we can, is going to be really, really important. We believe that this way of dealing with it makes sure that we've got that balance right, because, as I said, there is complexity within the system. There will be complexities within the system. We've historically had very similar systems. The only exemption at the moment is around domestic abuse, which will continue. That is comparable between us in England and Wales and Scotland at the moment, but it's not—. Our system now will be different. Sarah, did you want to add anything?

Do you not accept that—? I can't say that I've looked at this in detail yet, but isn't a system that has two levels of different exemption categories, and then there are groups where there are special circumstances, and there are criteria in those special circumstances that you would be able to note or list in regulation, isn't that, quite complex to understand?

I think it would be—. It's something, again, that came up in our discussions with local authorities, about maintaining that local connection. I think the regulation power will allow us to further consider the scope and function of local connection over time, but again it has to be done really carefully. As I said, I do hope that there will be an opportunity to assist further groups who encounter problems; I mentioned veterans and I mentioned care leavers. But one of the aims, just to say, around care leavers, for example, is, at the moment, we've seen with care leavers that often, sadly, or on occasions, there have been times when care leavers have gone into the homelessness system, and we want to make sure care leavers don't touch this system. So, it is really important. But we are here thinking that, in the future, if there are things that we can do, more that we can do—. But we will need to work closely with local authorities to explore it. As I said, they were very clear in the consultation responses to the original proposals around exemption that that would lead to a negative impact for resource management and a really disproportionate impact for some authorities. As I said, the White Paper did consider the impact on local connection tests for certain groups, but it didn't propose the groups with specific exemptions to a local connection referral. So, it is—. I understand, when we're looking at different groups, but sometimes—. If you put everybody into those groups then that’s not helping either, is it?

And just so that I can understand, the criteria for special circumstances will be the same, then, throughout Wales. One council won't be able to say that they want this set of criteria, or these special circumstances for these groups. It will be one set for all of Wales.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Diolch. John. Can you hear me, John? No.

That was a good shake of the head at the right moment.

Any suggestions?

We can get in touch with IT if you want to move on, Chair.

We'll move on and IT will hopefully sort it out for you, John.

Sorry, just whilst we wait, the White Paper noted some groups to be included in those special circumstances. Are these the same groups that you accept as possibilities, that you intend to include? Are there other groups under consideration, such as young people, members of the LGBTQ+ community, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, people with disabilities and people who have a background of substance abuse? Does that still reflect your intention, and are there other groups under consideration?

Thank you, Adam. Again, to be clear, the White Paper didn't propose the groups for specific exemptions to local connection referral. It did propose further consideration of how existing special circumstances criteria may be applied to the group. But special circumstances criteria remain in the Bill, and we have regulation-making powers in this area. So, that is something potentially in future as to how we look at things, but that does remain within the Bill. So, we have regulation-making powers in this area, and, obviously, it's something we'll be looking closely at.

But does the list I've just shared with you reflect your policy intention?

As I say, the White Paper didn't propose these groups to be specific exemptions to local connection referral. I think there's obviously—. I understand that the White Paper will look at all of those different groups, and seeing how that could be applied. But, you know—. So, again, we have regulation-making powers in this area for special circumstances, and that's something that I'm sure people will have views on.

I'm not entirely clear on this point. My notes state here that the White Paper had set out that these groups could be included. Is that not the case?

The White Paper did two things. It set out a list of proposed exemptions, which were veterans, care leavers, survivors of abuse and some prison leavers. And then it said that we would also consider how the special circumstances criteria could be used to accommodate the needs of some of these groups. To give you an example, care leavers might be placed outside of their county, and we want to make sure that, whether they are going back to their original local authority or a local authority in which they've lived, that the local authority is giving proper consideration to the specific circumstances for them.

People who've served in the armed forces sometimes struggle to form local connection at all because they might only be posted for two years in any one place, and that's not always enough. LGBTQ+ young people talk to us a lot about found families, and sometimes going back to their original home local authority being quite a dangerous place. So, what we wanted to use was those special circumstances to accommodate those kinds of needs, but it's not a specific exemption, whereas the White Paper did propose specific exemptions for those.

Can I come in there for a second, Adam? We talk about counties; let's talk about Powys, for example. Somebody living in Ystradgynlais would benefit much more from being housed in Ystalyfera than being housed in Newtown or Welshpool. Somebody living in a Ystalyfera would be happier being housed in Ystradgynlais, which is just across the bridge, than they would be up in the Afan valley. So, I think that although we've got local government boundaries, sometimes local connections can be quite interesting. I won't go into the positions of Cwmllynfell and Cwmtwrch—I'll leave that to Adam.

Do you not accept—? I understand the differentiation that you have made in terms of those exempted groups and those groups where membership of those additional groups can be taken into consideration to interpret local connection, but shouldn't the Senedd have an input into this question of which groups should be included, even at this initial stage, rather than leaving it to regulations? And in order to have clarity and assurance—. You could add to those groups, groups could be removed and so on, but shouldn't these categories on those two different levels be in the primary legislation?

I think that, again, it's—. There are lots of—. There are justifications for a number of groups, aren't there? As I said, that's why it's really important that we have those discussions around those special circumstances, and we've got the regulation-making powers in that area. Again, it's been something that we had discussions with local authorities on, and I think, with others, it's going to be important that we continue to explore this with local authorities as well. But, again, I very much see that we have to do this very carefully over time, with whichever groups that we will be talking about as well, because some of it's a little bit more—. Sometimes, things can seem straightforward, as you know, but actually can be a lot more complex when we get into things. For example, I'm just thinking around care leavers, and when you define when a care leaver is, at what age. It could be somebody'd been in care years before and might not be in a—. Maybe it's been only a week, at one time. It could be quite complicated, so I just think it has to be done in a very careful way, and we have to keep monitoring that over time as well.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Unfortunately, due to a technical problem, we've lost John. But can I just throw one question at you? Are there any amendments concerning drafting or otherwise you're already considering tabling, should the Senedd agree to the general principles of the Bill?

We are not. We are not, at the moment, in a position to confirm any amendments. We're obviously paying very much close attention to the scrutiny process. One of the important and, I think, quite different parts of this legislation and proposed Bill as well is that we've been staying very much in touch with stakeholders. So, we might be willing to make some clarification amendments at Stage 2, but we can update the committee when we have details on that as well.

Okay. Diolch. Whilst we haven't got John, perhaps I could ask some of the questions that are down for him. New section 96A(6) will enable the Welsh Ministers to issue guidance to assist landlords in understanding what is a reasonable period and what is a reasonable request. Why do you consider it appropriate that a social landlord could be directed to provide accommodation under new section 96B, when the Welsh Ministers don't have to issue that guidance?

Okay. So, provisions were made to enable Welsh Ministers to give guidance because we recognise that it will assist social landlords and local housing authorities to have clarity about what's expected. It is our intention to issue guidance. Generally, legislation confers power to issue guidance, rather than imposes a duty to do so, so that's the approach taken. The approach is not intended to suggest that guidance will not be issued; it's done to provide that degree of flexibility. But if it would provide assurance to the committee that this guidance will be provided, I am content to bring forward an amendment to change the guidance power to a 'must'.

Well, that'd be very helpful. Is it a mandatory order using existing court procedures?

Is there a—?

Is it a mandatory—? You're looking at social landlords. If they don't comply with the direction, is it a mandatory order using existing court procedures, or do you just try and ask them?

No. Direction given will be enforceable by injunction through a mandatory order from the courts.

I know it's easy when the landlord is a local authority. When it's a housing association, aren't there difficulties? Or 'registered social landlord' perhaps I ought to call it.

So, Welsh Ministers or a local housing authority could seek an injunction from the courts to compel RSLs to comply with the direction given.

That's very strong.

There we go. I don't know if we've got any legal—. Do you want to add anything to that?

No. That's the provision made in the Bill.

I feel like it's best to ask legal advice here. So, when you said—

Yes, that's the mechanism that's there, should it be needed.

So, hopefully, that provides assurance.

Finally from me—and we're still short of John, so I'll probably go back to Adam if he has anything further he wants to raise—the explanatory memorandum states that amendments will be made to the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (Wales) Order 2015 to address issues regarding the suitability of accommodation provided under homelessness functions. When will you make these amendments?

Okay. So, we don't need any new primary legislation to make any of our proposed changes to suitability. I intend to bring them forward using our existing secondary legislative powers. I should just say that stakeholders did give broad support for several of our proposals around improving the suitability of accommodation. However, many did express concerns around the practicality and feasibility of achieving these standards in a short time in terms of the limited housing stock, high demand, for example. But, I will be continuing to work with local authorities to inform the timing of secondary legislative changes. I do envisage the earliest work will relate to the prohibition of accommodation that has category 1 hazards, ending the use of shared sleeping spaces and placements in overcrowded accommodation. The White Paper also sets out longer term proposals for improvements in the standard and suitability of accommodation. Many of those were supported in principle but were deemed undeliverable due to that shortage of accommodation supply. But, changes in these areas will be considered as part of the ongoing review of temporary accommodation that we have committed to within the Bill.

Okay. Thank you. Any more from you, Adam?

No, but if you want me to, Chair. [Laughter.]

We've got four minutes, Adam.

Let's use it wisely. Okay.

We're changing the terms, aren't we, for processes, procedure, looking specifically at subordinate legislation, and the explanatory memorandum refers to the negative and affirmative procedures. However, the Bill itself uses the new terms that will come into force when the Bill comes into force. So, a very simple question: will you be changing the explanatory memorandum to reflect the Bill and the terminology used? It's quite a simple question.

Yes.

Good. Okay.

That was a very long question to get a 'yes'.

I knew that it was worth persevering in that regard, Chair. [Laughter.] Moving on, therefore, to the next question, the Schedule to the Bill contains a number of changes to the language across several existing legislative duties. For example, it substitutes

'person with whom the applicant lives or might reasonably be expected to live',

with

'member of the applicant's household'.

So, there's new terminology, more modern terminology being used. It's more up to date. So, could you say why you've made these changes?

Just to say, as well, the scope hasn't been narrowed, so there's no change to the people who are being captured. But, as you rightly say, the language has been updated and it's also meant to simplify the language to make sure that it's consistent terminology as well. So, the legislation refers to people who live or reside with an applicant and people who might reasonably be expected to live or reside with them. So, instead, the Bill refers to a member of a person's household, which is defined in the Bill to capture all variations, which I think better describes what is meant. So, it's really to simplify the language and, as you said, make sure that it's up to date.

Yes. The final question from me: why have the 1996 Act and the 2014 Act been defined on two separate occasions in the Bill, at sections 14 and 39, and sections 1 and 39 respectively?

It's been done to, really, assist the reading of it. I'm told some people read the whole Bill, some people read sections of the Bill and some people might not read it at all—I don't know. But, for the people who read it, I think it's very much done to assist those who are just going to pick the sections that are relevant, and those who might want to sit up and read the whole thing through diligently.

Thank you for the explanation.

That brings us to a natural end. Diolch yn fawr for coming, Cabinet Secretary, and for bringing your officials—and you didn't cough.

Apologies for coughing. I very much offer apologies for my voice and my coughing.

No, you avoided it. Thank you very much for coming. You know you'll get a transcript of this and you know you'll get a chance to read through it. I say that every time because I've got to.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Hopefully, you'll remove all the coughing bits from the transcript, and, also, we will make sure that we send you the documents that have been sent to the Local Government and Housing Committee so that you've got them as well, particularly around the GP side of things.

Thank you.

Diolch. Thank you, everybody.

Unfortunately, we lost John part of the way through. There may be some questions we haven't reached. If there are, can we come to you in writing?

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr.

We'll have a five-minute break.