Local Government and Housing Committee

Diolch, Cadeirydd. It's a real pleasure to be able to give evidence on this Bill today. It's a real landmark Bill, I believe. Removal of the tests do build on and formalise the progress made already by local authorities since the pandemic, ensuring that we remove the barriers that prevent people from getting help and accessing homelessness support services. You mention the priority need and intentionality, but the Bill goes far beyond those changes to those aspects in terms of priority need and intentionality, as important as they are. In combination, we have a package of reforms within this Bill, and that will, we believe, prevent more cases of homelessness by intervening earlier and offering more ways through the system—moving people through the system. At the moment, we have a system that really focuses on the crisis edge, and we know that we need to move towards that preventative side of services, which we know is cost-effective, not just economically, but in terms of the human cost as well. So, it seeks to prevent homelessness as a young person transitions from care, and tackles homelessness after a period in custody as well. It places responsibility for homelessness prevention across the public sector, making it a public service response, and makes the most effective use of housing supply, relieving that pressure on temporary accommodation use, and providing local authorities with more ways to accommodate people. So, there are some key aspects there, Cadeirydd.

Thanks very much, Cabinet Secretary. Another key test for legislation always is whether it will have the practical effect that it's designed to achieve. In this committee's inquiry on homelessness, we heard that some local authorities have waiting lists of homeless people waiting to access temporary accommodation. So, if we are already in a situation where some people are owed legal duties in theory, but aren't getting those duties upheld in practice, how will you ensure that the new legislation, this new legislation, is effective? How can we be confident that it will have the effect that you seek to achieve?

Yes, absolutely. And just to say as well that homelessness— .You know, this is in response to it being a really urgent challenge. And this is not just in Wales, but very much across the world, and I believe that doing nothing is not an option within this. Without reform, homelessness will increase, as will the cost to the public purse. I do recognise that local authorities are working under serious pressure right now, and this might sometimes result in practice that falls below our standards that none of us would be happy with. So, alleviating that current pressure within the system, through that earlier intervention and prevention, is one of those key aims of the Bill. But phasing will be absolutely crucial within this. And we recognise it may not be possible to do this all in one go, so that's why the focus will be on those preventative services at an earlier stage before we go into some of those other measures, such as, we mentioned, around intentionality and priority need.

Okay. Thanks again, Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, the role of local authorities is key in terms of delivery of the aims of the legislation. In the White Paper, the Welsh Government said it would consider whether it needed additional legal powers to ensure that local authorities deliver the requirements of the legislation. So, could you explain to committee why you have not included these powers in the Bill, and how will you ensure that local authorities deliver in a consistent way?

Yes. Thank you, Cadeirydd. We've considered carefully whether additional legal powers are necessary to ensure that legislation is implemented effectively, and we've concluded within that that they're not. The Welsh statute book already contains a raft of enforcement measures that can be used to enforce and ensure effective implementation of the Bill. Welsh Ministers can already rely on the general powers of direction and intervention under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, and the NHS (Wales) Act 2006. The Bill contains an amendment to ensure the enforcement provisions in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 will also apply to duties in the Bill owed by social services.

We've also introduced additional enforcement measures where these are necessary or where existing powers are not in place. You'll know that the Bill introduces a power enabling Welsh Ministers to issue a direction to social landlords who fail to comply with a request from a local authority to provide accommodation for homelessness application. And the Bill contains provisions that apply to a number of non-devolved public sector bodies, including prisons, armed forces and the Department for Work and Pensions. It's obviously more challenging to apply enforcement measures to those bodies and, as such, it's my intention to address any challenges with implementation through that joint working, guidance and implementation support.

Could you tell committee, Cabinet Secretary, what sort of response you've had through the consultation to, you know, that consideration through the White Paper of the possible need for additional legal powers? Was it a mixed response or was it overwhelmingly in favour or against?

I don't know if Hannah would like to comment.

I don't think this was an area where we received strong feedback. There's definitely a sense across the sector that enforcement isn't the best enabler of change and they would much more welcome partnership, collaborative and collegiate working to help them meet their aims. I think it's fair to say there are shared objectives around ending homelessness in Wales across the sector. The principles of this White Paper were well agreed. It's the delivery and the implementation that is particularly challenging. And I would say, across the board, we received welcome feedback around working closely with partners to deliver this and a sense that additional enforcement measures weren't necessary, and that extended to additional regulation. And, as you'll be aware, the expert review panel chose not to bring forward recommendations in that area either.

I see. Okay. Thank you.

We know, Cabinet Secretary, and I'm sure I've heard you say it many times, that there's much else that needs to happen around this legislation other than what the legislation itself will hopefully achieve. And key to that, really, is supply, isn't it, in many ways? In the explanatory memorandum, you acknowledged the important role of social housing supply if this Bill is to be successful. So, it would just be interesting to hear from you today, really, how confident you are that the Welsh Government can achieve the necessary scale of increase in supply, because, you know, it really is a major increase that's required, isn't it, and it's a major challenge, I think.

Yes, you're right. The legislation really is the framework, and it's really one piece of how we tackle this. You know, this looks at the homelessness system, but, obviously, there are other parts to that. As you say, and as I've said, supply is one of those key aspects, as is things like workforce as well.

In terms of the supply, we've set an ambitious target for this Senedd term, and we are very focused on delivering as many social homes as we can. But, again, I very much am aware, when the Senedd term comes to an end, that's not the end of everything either. We have to keep that ambition going. We have to keep that focus on. And some of the things that I'm really pleased with since coming into post is that we have set record levels of investment in building new social homes. We've actually also had record levels of delivery, and it is really important that we can continue with that ambition and that we have a really strong pipeline. Something that I've really seen through, since I've come into post, is the pipeline that's there, which is actually very good to know. I think I'd be more worried and concerned if there wasn't that pipeline. And some of the issues around supply are not just for Welsh Government either; it's something across all partners, really, involved in this. And I know that that was something that the affordable homes taskforce, which was chaired by Lee Waters—I'm very grateful for that, as well as everybody who's involved—recognised as well that it is something that we all need to pull together in. But I very much understand that supply is going to be key to this as well.

Okay. Thank you, again. Just finally from me, on funding, perhaps we'll come on to some of the funding issues around increasing that supply, but firstly you estimate the cost of implementation of this legislation to be £325.8 million over 10 years, and those are the estimated direct costs mainly to local authorities. I guess it's always difficult to come up with a cost estimate, really, isn't it? So, how robust is that figure would you say? And given that it's over a 10-year period, what sort of review process will there be to ascertain, through that period, whether those costs are the actual costs or whether there needs to be some revision?

Absolutely, and, as the regulatory impact assessment set out, initial investment would be necessary, obviously, in those early years for implementation, and, obviously, future budgets are a matter for relevant Governments to set. I do recognise that. The Bill will require, as I say, upfront investment as we refocus our homelessness approach on that prevention. But we have to be clear that we have already been investing in this in readiness for the Bill. We've protected and we've grown our homelessness prevention fund—that's over £240 million for 2025-26. That includes over £200 million through the housing support grant, which is our main tool, obviously, for early help. And it also includes £21 million that was transferred into the revenue support grants to support statutory homelessness provisions. While the RIA, obviously, only covers costs associated with the Bill, I do recognise that wider investment is required to meet the ambition to end homelessness, again particularly in respect of the housing supply that we've just mentioned. But, as I say, we are providing record levels of investment in social housing across Wales, and that planned investment will be around £1.9 billion by the end of this Senedd term.

I just want to, again, be clear with the committee that the system that we have at the moment is the most expensive that we could possibly have, and that's why we believe there is a need for change. It is focused on that crisis end and it is reliant on what we know is expensive temporary accommodation as well. I don't know if there's anything anybody else wants to add.

Yes, I'd probably just add a few things. As the Cabinet Secretary says, we think the system we're running now is about as expensive as it can be. There is evidence to suggest that every homeless household costs at least £20,000 to public services, and that obviously doesn't include the huge costs to them personally. So, the reforms offer a real opportunity for long-term cost savings.

In terms of your question around measuring that over time, we’ve tied the savings to a core scenario that measures how we change prevention relief over time. The savings are tied to a 10 per cent increase in those prevention relief statistics. We have annual release on those, but we look at them every month, so we’ll be able to review in a very timely way. But it’s probably also really important to say that when you take in the societal costs of homelessness, we only need to see around a 3 per cent increase in prevention activity—given that it’s been much higher than that in previous years already—to break even on this legislation, which probably makes a really strong cost-benefit efficiency case for bringing these reforms forward.

Yes. Let me just bring in a couple of other committee members. Firstly, Lesley Griffiths, then Peter Fox. Lesley.

Thanks very much, Chair. Cabinet Secretary, you just mentioned that the Welsh Government have got a very ambitious target of 20,000 social houses this Senedd term. Do you think that will be achieved?

We’re doing everything we possibly can to achieve that. We’re working really hard. It’s a real focus and, in terms of a Government focus, a real priority. We have to remember some of the challenges that we’ve had within this Senedd term. When the previous Cabinet Secretary set the target, she always said that it was a stretching and ambitious target when it was set. And, in that time, we’ve also had things like the inflation that we’ve seen. We’ve had the impacts of COVID. So, there are lots of challenges that we’ve had. But our focus is very much on delivering as many social homes as we possibly can, not just for the target, but beyond that, and that’s why that pipeline is so important.

Okay, Lesley.

Sorry, if I could just ask, Chair, on not achieving that target, what impact do you think it would have on your proposals in this Bill?

I think, again, it’s not just that we have the target, in terms of, probably, election times, it’s not something that—. As I said, we really need to increase that supply, and I’m very clear that we focus on that. We had the affordable homes taskforce, which really helped us look if there was anything else we could be doing to get as many more homes into the system as we possibly can, whether that comes in just after or before the end of the target date.

But the other thing that I would say is that we’ve been investing in TACP—our transitional accommodation capital programme—and that has had—. We’ve been able to set that out again four months earlier than we previously had. So, that gives confidence to the system, and allows more planning and things to come into place. So, we are trying to really focus on doing everything we can, so getting as much into the system as we can. But I very much know that the focus is on supply, as well as other things, within this legislation.

Okay, Lesley. Peter.

Thank you. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. It’s recognised that there will be long-term savings of over £1 billion. We recognise that, but, to get there, there needs to be quite a lot of upfront money, as you recognise, and a large portion of that—£300-odd million—to local authorities is going to be capital, I would imagine, perhaps.

No.

It’s not going to be capital, okay. I was just wondering, if we’re going to be needing to build more homes as well, how are we working with local authorities to pump prime that system, so we can achieve some of these things. I know how tight it is in local authorities from a capital perspective, to acquire more homes, or to—. So, I just wondered how that was split and how you were working with local authorities to pump prime them ready for what they need to do.

Firstly, local authorities are absolutely key in this, and that’s why we’ve been engaging with them, and officials have been engaging with them, throughout the whole process. This Bill has been long in the making, and we’re very pleased to have had good engagement with local authorities.

In terms of, 'No, this isn't related to capital', obviously, there’s the focus that we have on supply and building and acquiring more homes. It’s not just about building; it is acquiring. So, it is bringing some other properties back into use in terms of voids. So, we’ve been doing that as well. So, there's the supply side there, but it's also about how local authorities organise within their homelessness system, and we've seen some really good examples around Wales where they've been anticipating this legislation coming forward, they've been putting some processes in place and that has really helped to see a reduction in homelessness. I don't know, Sarah or Hannah, if you want to just talk about that before we come back, then.

Yes, because the purchasing of housing would require capital.

Yes.

You wouldn't spend revenue to buy houses.

No.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. So, just to be really clear, the RIA is just costing the impacts of this specific bit of legislation, not the wider homelessness system. So, not the wider housing supply aspect. But, as the Chair said, obviously the RIA acknowledges the wider costs and implications. So, as such, the RIA is focused on the cost of the reforms and the system. So, very much looking from a revenue perspective. Each individual provision has been costed in that regard. The Cabinet Secretary was talking about some of the preparatory work that local authorities have been doing already and we have seen, as the Cabinet Secretary said, in some local authorities, they've already restructured their teams to focus more on prevention, and that's already reaping rewards in terms of their prevention rates. So, demonstrating how the reforms, even before they've come to fruition, are having an influence in terms of increasing those prevention rates and trying to take some of that pressure out of the system.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Peter. Just before we move on, Cabinet Secretary, in addition to what you have already told us, is there anything else that you could say in terms of the Welsh Government's commitment to provide the necessary funding to increase that social housing supply, and also for housing support services, to make this Bill a success? Is there anything else that you could tell us today or, as you said, is this for future budget rounds and—?

We've seen some examples where we have been able to use—. I think it was earlier this year, just before the end of the financial year, there was an extra £10 million that we were able to put in to that investment into supply. So, I'm always making the argument around the Cabinet table about the need for investment, to build more homes and to acquire more homes. As I said, it's looking at bringing back empty properties, and we've got our Leasing Scheme Wales, which does that as well. So, we're trying to have a number of different schemes that actually have the aim to create that capacity within our system.

I don't think that there's anything more to say particularly on supply today. I think that the key point, though, is that we're not going to completely build our way out of homelessness, either. So, I think that while supply is an important aspect of it, homelessness is, as you will all know, very complicated. It can be very personal, and it's important that people who do experience that or who are on the brink of experiencing that have that access to support and help, and I think that that's really what this Bill does. It's moving it away from just a housing issue and making it more of a public service response to homelessness, which I think is what we all want to see, and all know that that's what people who work in the system tell us. They're facing a huge amount of pressure, with more complex cases day in, day out, and we've heard that they need more time with people to help with that prevention. And indeed, we heard from 350 people with lived experience of homelessness, and that is absolutely key to all of this. And their voices, I hope, very much are recognised within this Bill and run through that. They said that they need more time to be helped and supported with preventative measures, rather than just perhaps having the house. It's not always as simple as that. I understand the focus on supply, and I absolutely agree that it is very much part of it; it's not everything.

No. Okay. Thank you very much. Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Talking about that earlier prevention, by increasing the prevention duty from 56 days to six months, how will you ensure that applicants do actually get helped at that earlier stage, rather than having a duty opened and then nothing happening, as we've seen, for several months?

Diolch, Laura. Again, a key aspect of this Bill is around that prevention, and a longer prevention period does mean that people can ask for help earlier. It does give local housing authorities a better chance and more options to prevent homelessness. As I said, and we've discussed already, prevention really is by far the most effective means of responding to homelessness. Local authorities have been very clear with us that they need more time to prevent homelessness. The current 56-day time period isn't sufficient and it does delay people seeking help and then pushes them to the crisis point. And, as I've said, that crisis point really is where it's very expensive, not just for, again, the economy, but also for the person.

So, through extending the prevention period to six months, we will give local authorities and the applicant a greater opportunity to prevent homelessness from occurring. Of course, time isn't the only thing local authorities need to prevent homelessness, and we also need to ensure that the actions taken to prevent homelessness are effective.

Thank you, Chair. Having accommodation and support in place, as you know, Cabinet Secretary, before someone leaves prison is absolutely essential, as was highlighted to me when I visited the Salvation Army in Newport. This committee has previously heard evidence that the 56-day prevention duty isn't working effectively for people coming out of prison into homelessness. If the 56-day duty hasn't worked, can you explain how a six-month duty will be more effective, specifically for prison leavers, please?

Yes, thank you, Laura. I commend the work that's being done by organisations, as you've rightly said, and one of the other aspects of the prevention will be the prevention, support and accommodation plans. You'll probably get used to that, as I'm starting to get used to it, as PSAPs. So, they will come into play. So, these prevention, support and accommodation plans will be helping to ensure that effective prevention is taken, and that's for everybody. They'll provide a formal record of the steps to be taken to prevent homelessness and will be developed jointly between the applicant and the local authority. So, that's one example.

But in terms of specifically around prison leavers, again, we very much know that the system at the moment has been working where, it's often very last-minute, people are almost just about to come out of prison and then are taken to seek homeless support on the day that they're released, and this is something that we do not want to see. Again, the current system is pushing people into that crisis point. So, we don't want to see these last-minute wranglings in the run-up to the prison release. It very much puts pressure on local authorities, puts pressure on the individual, in particular, leading to very bad outcomes in terms of that.

So, the Bill will remove the current ambiguity concerning who's responsible for supporting a prisoner facing homelessness, and it will clarify the timescales for intervention. So, the Bill means that, for those taken into custody with existing accommodation in the community, the local authority will have a responsibility to prevent the loss of that accommodation. If they're already homeless when sentenced, then the full duty will only be owed when there are six months left to serve. And for those due to be released, the supporting resettlement process will establish a further housing assessment near to the six months pre-release point, so that an authority has sufficient and less pressurised time to identify appropriate accommodation in time for release.

So, people leaving custody have to deal with a significant increased level of stigma when it comes to sourcing accommodation, and that is really why that focus on prevention immediately at reception is important. So, if we can save that accommodation—existing accommodation—we should. So, there's some really good work, I believe, that's going to be put into place for prison leavers, which will help the system. I think that we can learn from some really good examples that have happened through the early release scheme and the way authorities worked together there. So, we're still keen to do that learning as well.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. As you say, having that in place early is absolutely key to preventing, not just homelessness, but obviously reoffending as well. Will there be regular reviews into ensuring that that early intervention is actually happening? Because, as you know, a lot of the homelessness that we see unfortunately stems from that problem that you’ve just outlined, that it’s just not happening until the last minute, and people are set out on their own after leaving prison.

Yes. Thank you, Laura. Yes, absolutely. Obviously, we’re working closely with His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, and other partners, to revise the systems to support our legislative change, but we’ve already convened a post-custody accommodation working group, which is co-chaired by HMPPS and Welsh Government. And that’s going to develop the necessary mechanisms to ensure the system is fit for purpose when people leave custody. So, absolutely, the work is going on now to make sure that we get that right.

Thank you. The Bill gives local authorities a broader range of accommodation options for discharging the main housing duty. The White Paper included a list of safeguards to ensure that applicants’ interests are protected, but the Bill doesn’t include most of those safeguards. Why have you adopted this approach, Cabinet Secretary?

In terms of the safeguards, the Bill does provide a range of safeguards. Any home offered must be safe, suitable and available for at least 12 months, and, additionally, applicants must agree that the duty should end when accepting such offers of accommodation. So, there are safeguards in place. Another safeguard is that a local housing authority must check in with those people provided with these accommodation options after they move, to ensure the living arrangements are working well, and to help them keep their home and avoid them returning to homelessness.

So, in my view, further safeguards such as those set out in the White Paper are really better established in the guidance, as many of those safeguards should apply to a range of accommodation settings and all applicants. Hannah, I don’t know if you’d like to add anything.

Yes, of course. So, the White Paper set out a range of safeguards, as the Cabinet Secretary said, and we have delivered the ones that are most appropriate for legislation in this Bill. So, as the Bill sets out, the applicant offered these forms of accommodation is able to consent explicitly to them, and that obviously means they also have the power to veto them. And, really importantly, there is a new duty to contact applicants included in this Bill, and it’s specific to this, to these maximal housing options. So, if an applicant has entered into a less traditional form of housing as a way of discharging their homelessness duty, the local authority is required to follow up with them at around the six-month point, to check in that that accommodation is working well, and identify any risk of homelessness early, or just make sure that the right levels of support are in place. So, they’re quite—. Well, they’re very new; they don’t exist in the legislation at the moment.

The other safeguards that were referenced in the White Paper are not really appropriate for inclusion in a Bill. They related to making sure people had appropriate advice services, that they were advised how to seek help in the future. There were points around the suitability of accommodation, which we have a separate statutory Order for. And there was a query around setting up new contracts. So, obviously, we have the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 and that sets out what an occupation contract covers. So, we didn’t think legislation was the right place for those additional safeguards, but we do think that the safeguards we’ve included in the Bill will be quite powerful.

Thank you. By having some of those safeguards, though, just in guidance, are you confident that this won’t lead to unintended consequences of vulnerable people being pressured into giving consent to be placed in unsuitable situations?

We've considered the risk of those unintended consequences as carefully as we possibly could through the Bill's development, as you'd understand. I think we’ve struck the right balance between providing that increased opportunity for people to have their homelessness ended, while protecting those vulnerable groups. The duty to contact following the discharge of the duty, and the required consent of the applicant to be discharged of their homelessness outside of the traditional private rented sector or social housing routes, are also key safeguards.

Diolch, Chair.

Okay, Laura. We'll move on to Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. I want to look at the abolishment of the priority need and intentional homelessness. The proposal is that there will be a clearly defined lead-in time. Why are you proposing in this Bill that those won't be removed until five or six years hence?

Diolch, Lesley. As I said, these are two important parts of the Bill. I have listened carefully to the concerns of local authorities through the consultation and the engagement process, and I think, from that, it's clear that a phased approach is necessary to ensure that we have an effective implementation and that we take local authorities with us. The data shows we're well on the way to the full removal of the tests, which is really good, but I'm very cognisant of the current demands on local authorities. That came out very clearly within our consultation with them. They are, as you know, our key delivery partner and we want to ensure that their experience is heard and that they have time to work towards the complete removal of priority need and intentionality.

We've used 2030-31 to aid planning the cost of the implementation of the Bill. The exact timescales and the phasing of the implementation need to be agreed in discussion with local authorities. But as I said at the start, we're very much minded that the prevention side of the provisions be implemented as soon as possible, because we know that that's what's going to hopefully make a real difference and really stop people going from that crisis point and really focus on reducing the demand.

What discussions have either you had or your officials had with Scotland? Because obviously they took away their priority need back in 2012 and they saw a huge increase in the amount of temporary accommodation that was required. So, what lessons have you learned?

Thank you, Lesley. It's true to say that the changes to priority need in Scotland did lead to increased demand for temporary accommodation. It is important to recognise that the removal of priority need in Scotland happened in 2012, and that was brought in without any corresponding changes to prevention duties. A prevention duty is only now being brought in as part of the Scottish housing Bill. It's also worth noting that some authorities in Scotland reported time and cost savings related to the removal of priority need. These were noted in relation to time saving associated with investigating and evidencing priority need as part of the assessment process. So, we're very cognisant of the Scottish experience, and my officials work very closely with Scottish colleagues. I don't know if officials, perhaps, want to say a little bit more about that.

You'll be aware that Scotland are bringing forward their own housing legislation at the moment, so I meet with my counterpart there every six weeks and we exchange views on policy and legislative development. We've also, for many, many years, met with all members of the four nations every four weeks to discuss ongoing policy. So, we are very cognisant of how things work in Scotland. We learn a lot from them; I think they also learn a lot from us. We're constantly, I think, competing with each other to have the best legislation around homelessness.

We are of the view that the context in which we are bringing forward these changes in Wales is very different to the context in which they were brought forward in Scotland. The pandemic really did change our understanding of homelessness. That's not to say that we didn't think that there was a hidden homelessness need, but the pandemic exposed that need. It surfaced in the data and understanding of homelessness that we didn't have before. The evidence available to us—and we're not aware of anything to the contrary—suggests that we probably have exposed the homelessness need in Wales. We now need to work to sustain the system to meet that need. But we're not of the view, and the data doesn't suggest, that it will bring forward numbers anywhere like it brought forward in Scotland, because we are doing this post pandemic and not before.

Thank you. Obviously, removing the intentionality test has caused some concern among local authorities. I've certainly spoken to my own local authority. Could you explain the difference between the intentionality test and the deliberate manipulation test that you're bringing in and why you think that will have more of an impact?

Firstly, it's important to recognise that the intentionality test is a barrier to ensuring a person-centred inclusive homelessness service. I believe that its removal from law is essential if we want our reforms to end homelessness in Wales. I don't think that a system based on threats or that risks the exclusion of people and that doesn't prioritise meeting support needs is a system that we should accept. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on understanding the actions of people, including those with complex support needs, and meeting those needs.

It's important to clarify that there's no replacement of the intentionality test in the Bill—it's removed completely as a test that determines entitlement to homelessness assistance. But as I said, there are protections for staff and to the system within the Bill. There are red lines that I don't think we should accept in any way for our housing workforce in terms of suffering violence or threats or our finite accommodation stock being intentionally damaged or destroyed. Local authorities will continue to have tools to respond to such unacceptable behaviours. There are safeguards to disincentivise anyone from deliberately making themselves homeless to try and gain priority for social housing.

In terms of the deliberate manipulation test, that addresses concerns around a perverse incentive that homelessness is the sole route to social housing. The purpose of the test is to disincentivise and prevent people from risking their existing housing in order to access social housing. Where someone is found to have tried to deliberately manipulate the system, the local authority will have the discretion to remove any priority for allocation of social housing that they would have received as a result of their homelessness. That will ensure that resources are directed at those most in need and send a clear message that homelessness is not a route into social housing.

The main policy intention of the test is to disincentivise people from gaming the system to access social housing, making it clear that it can't be used in that way. But it'll be important that the implications of such behaviour are discussed with applicants at an early stage to disincentivise that behavior and prevent any unnecessary homelessness. Where homelessness does occur, any individual remains entitled to homelessness assistance. There are a lot of 's's there. [Laughter.]

Thank you.

Okay, Lesley? Yes. Okay. Siân Gwenllian.

Good morning. My questions relate to local connection. The Bill introduces a local connection test in order to confirm the right to the duty. So, why do you think there's a need to put this test on the face of this Bill if that duty already exists and is used by local authorities already?

Diolch, Siân. In terms of the local connection test, I think that it's really important that—. Again, this is something that came up through the consultation process that we had when we spoke with local authorities and others. They raised that local connection was a key tool in ensuring that local authorities were resourced and focused on people in their communities.

In bringing forward this Bill, we're going to be creating a very different system in Wales, and this has benefits, but we must be careful not to create unintended consequences. In further considering the proposals, we encountered some complexities that were difficult. It's crucial that we ensure that the changes we make in the Bill and the resources required to make these changes benefit people in Wales.

It's been necessary to rethink our original proposals that were in the White Paper. Instead, this Bill brings forward a new local connection test that determines whether someone is entitled to the main homelessness duty. This will be important in ensuring that homelessness services are focused on the people of Wales in our communities.

Thank you. I understand that there has been quite a bit of discussion on this, but it wasn't part of the White Paper to introduce this local connection aspect into the legislation. Certainly, the White Paper went in the other direction, didn't it? It spoke about bringing in more exemptions to the local connection test. I think that you intend to maintain one of those exceptions, but why not bring more exceptions into the local connection test? What was the thinking behind that?

Diolch, Siân. Neither the White Paper nor the expert panel proposed the removal of the local connection, but it's vital that we ensure homelessness services are, as I said, focused on the people of Wales and our communities, otherwise we won't be able to achieve the aims of the Bill. Due to the complexities of how the system works cross-border, it's not been possible to take forward the proposals as originally envisaged without the risk of opening up the system in terms of demand. So, we've retained the current definition of a local connection, but the Bill does set out regulation-making powers that help us add detail to the definition in partnership with stakeholders. These powers will allow us to reconsider the scope and function of local connection over time, but this will have to, obviously, be done very carefully. I do hope that this offers a route of assisting particular groups who encounter problems associated with local connections, particularly care leavers and veterans, in the future.

The Bill creates a local connection to Wales test, which is quite a new thing, isn't it? Why is this needed, given that local authorities can already apply their own local connection tests in their local authority area? Why is this local connection to Wales needed? What's the intention of that?

Currently, the local connection is only about referrals; it's not an entitlement test. It should only be considered where a local authority is of the view that an individual should be referred to another local authority in England or Wales for assistance. This can be applied at the discretion of the local authority. The concept of a local connection is not currently used to determine whether someone is owed to the main housing duty by an authority. Following implementation, it's vital that we ensure the system is open to the people within Wales, so that within our finite resources, we're able to achieve our ambitions of this Bill here. So, to protect this risk, it's been necessary to determine an entitlement to settled accommodation in Wales for those with a local connection here. I recognise it doesn't deliver the original policy intention as set out in the White Paper, but it is my role to make decisions that balance our ideals with deliverability.

Siân, just before you go on, let me just bring in Laura Anne Jones, who would like to come in on these points.

Diolch. Cabinet Secretary, I asked you in the Senedd Chamber, but I'm just wondering if you would elaborate to committee maybe a bit further. The UK Government, as you know, recognise the fact that veterans move around a lot and often don't have strong local connections to a certain area. The UK Government have been quite strong in the fact they've given them an exemption to the local connection test. Why in Wales are we not being as strong as that and putting in the Bill that they are exempt from it? Thank you.

In England, veterans are no longer required to have a local connection to qualify for social housing. Prior to December 2024, this exemption did not apply to veterans who had served more than five years. [Interruption.] I thought Laura had frozen then. Sorry, Chair. This restriction has now been removed, but no changes have taken place in relation to the homelessness local connection test in England.

It's important to recognise that in Wales, anyone can register for social housing in any area. We have the power to remove the local requirement for veterans for social housing allocations in Wales, as they have done in England, and so we do not need this Bill to do that. As I mentioned in the Chamber in response to you, my officials are working on plans to bring this change through secondary legislation and, subject to the timescale of the Senedd, this will be brought in alongside this Bill. I very much hope that this will be this year, really, but that's dependent on the Senedd timescale. But, Hannah.

Yes, I just wanted to come in, because I just think it's important to be clear that local connection exists in different parts of the system. We've talked about it in two different contexts during this question, so we just need to be careful of that. There's a local connection test for homelessness assistance, which is the change we're making in the Bill; local connection is then considered in the allocation of social housing, and that is relevant to the regulations change around veterans that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned. It is complicated. The landscape as it exists is a little bit complicated. So, we are really happy to put together a note setting out how local connection works in the current legislative landscape versus how it will work in the future for you and make it clear where we're talking about allocation of social housing versus where we're talking about homelessness.

I think that would be very useful, yes. Thank you very much. Siân.

Thank you very much. That will be very useful, to have that note, because it is quite complex, I think.

Moving on to the other duty that is placed in this Bill, namely that local authorities are to provide support services to help applicants to retain their accommodation, which is something, of course, that is part of the preventative work, but it is going to cost, isn't it? The RIA says that this will cost an additional £7.8 million annually. One would perhaps think that sounds a bit low given the challenges facing support services currently. Are you confident that this figure is an accurate estimate of the additional annual costs to local authorities that will result from this provision in terms of helping applicants to retain their accommodation?

Diolch, Siân. The estimate in the RIA on the cost of the new duty to provide help to retain suitable accommodation is based on the best evidence available to us at the current time. Just a couple of points to note about the duty that make cost estimates difficult: the new duty won't be universal, it'll be confined to those who the local housing authority identifies as requiring support to retain their accommodation following discharge of the main homelessness duty. Many local authorities and housing associations already offer tenancy sustainment services, so works under way under this duty will not be completely new. It's obviously then difficult to estimate any additional demand created by the strengthening of tenancy support, so, to do so, we've used statutory data relating to the loss of accommodation and detailed data provided to us by three local authorities around the demand for tenancy support, and we've scaled this up to create a proxy estimate for demand. So, the cost estimate is our best estimation, based on the data available, but I am open to review in light of any additional evidence through the next phase of scrutiny. I don't know if anybody wants to add anything to that.

No, I think that's fair to say. Data in this area is a little bit difficult, so we've used a bit of a deep-dive into the data available from three local authorities, because that was the best data available to us, and we've also looked at reasons for homelessness where it occurs from settled accommodation and used those figures to form this basis. But, as the Cabinet Secretary says, we're very open to exploring other data if that exists.

Okay, Siân?

Thank you. I think we have covered the questions in the next area regarding unreasonable behaviour. That is, you're going to be bringing new tests in that will replace the unreasonable failure to co-operate test. Just one question on this, therefore: aren't you creating a situation where people who are vulnerable or with complex needs won't have their housing needs met by bringing these new tests in? A more specific set of tests, I know, is what they'll be, but it's still going to perhaps lead to a situation where people aren’t having their needs met.

Diolch, Siân. Again, I’ve been clear that unmet support needs should never be a reason to end support, and, quite the opposite, they mean that our interventions are going to be even more important.

I've recently met with some Housing First clients and, again, that reminded me very much of the value and importance of assertive outreach, so we must go to those individuals to gain their trust and keep offering them support. But, as I said, I do believe that we must ensure that our homelessness staff and other service users are kept safe. That is a real issue, a real concern—obviously, in a minority of cases. But we have to have red lines, we have to keep our staff safe; nobody should be fearful of that and at risk. It's unacceptable for staff to face violence and threats in the workplace. So, this Bill provides local authorities with the tools to address this. So, there are those strong safeguards. So, people who use violence or threats towards staff can have their duties ended, but only if there's no special circumstance that would make it appropriate for any duty to continue to apply. Local authorities also retain the ability to end duties where there's intentional reckless damage to property if there's no reasonable excuse for the action taken by the applicant or member of the household, and there are no special circumstances that would require the continuation of the duties. Again, it's not a decision that I've taken lightly, but I have to balance the rights of the applicants with protecting our valuable workforce, because without our workforce we wouldn't be able to have any of this Bill; they're absolutely integral to preventing homelessness.

So, I expect the provisions to be used carefully and where there are special circumstances that have resulted in this behaviour, such as cuckooing, coercion or abuse, local authorities will need to consider other appropriate steps to be taken. But I trust local authorities to use these provisions well, and our focus must always be on how we help people, not whether we help people. And that's really very much a guiding principle for me within this. We have these red lines, but, again, I think this goes very much to the heart of the Bill, where it is a public service response and there might be other services that would need to be involved at that stage. So, I very much recognise the importance of this and the careful balance, but I think we've got the balance right and I do trust local authorities to use that in the right way.

Okay. Diolch, Siân. Lee Waters.

Thanks very much. I just want to ask about the so-called duty to 'ask and act', this idea that public bodies need to proactively identify people they come into contact with who are at risk of homelessness. A couple of questions around this about why some groups are included and why some groups are not. Both the expert panel and the evidence suggested that primary care should be included in the responsibility to proactively identify people at risk of homelessness and to help them and put them on the radar, and the Government have decided not to include primary care, and I'd like to understand better, please, why.

Diolch, Lee. Thank you. As you said, we do have a comprehensive list of people who will have the duties to 'ask and act', and perhaps we can make sure that the committee has all those there. But it includes the Welsh ambulance service, probation, prisons, so there are a number of those bodies, but, as you rightly say, on primary care, we've taken a different decision. So, the duty will apply to local health boards, and this will include urgent and emergency care, in-patient care, mental health and substance use services. Primary care is not included because the Welsh Government has a different, contractual-based relationship with the sector. So, in discussions that officials had with health policy colleagues, I've determined that our policy intention is much better met through contract renegotiation and service specification for GP services. Work with primary care services is already under way. It's recently been launched in primary care to assist GP practices' planned services to address inequalities in health often seen by patients experiencing homelessness. That blueprint is informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. So, there is work under way, but it's felt that, following those discussions, it would be better done in the way of the GP contract renegotiation.

I wonder if I could just test that a little bit, because there's a broader picture here. The other inquiry this committee is doing is into delayed discharges of care out of hospitals and into care homes. Part of the evidence we've heard in that inquiry is the failure of the health service and the housing services to talk to each other, to plan, in this case, discharges of people already in hospital out of hospital into suitable accommodation to stop them from blocking beds, in the pejorative term that we've become all used to using. So, there's a similar theme here, isn't there, of a lack of join-up between local government, which is housing, and the health service. Your argument is that that's best done in the primary setting through contract renegotiation. But it's part of a broader problem of a lack of join-up between the services, and this would be an opportunity to try and change some of that wiring, wouldn't it?

In terms of the—. As I say, I think we've got the right balance with how we're going to deal with primary care. There are lots of other organisations—. As I say, it's going to apply to local health boards. But, in terms of hospital discharge, again, I'm very clear that nobody should be discharged from hospital to homelessness, and I think that we'll best achieve that by building on those existing mechanisms, rather than creating a new duty. We've got a policy area where the model of practice offers a far greater opportunity than a new duty, and the evidence points to a range of measures that can make a change in the area, and I'm prioritising bringing those forward. So, we've got a new task and finish group that has been established and is developing guidance to end hospital discharges to the street. This work will be built on the discharge to recover and assess model, which is the D2RA model. So, that is something that is happening at the moment. I don't know if anybody else would like to—

Just on primary care, if you think it's best done through contract renegotiation, are you then telling us that the 'ask and act' duty will become part of the NHS GP contract?

No. No. Sorry, no, it won't be part of the contract. It's just going to be part of the negotiations.

Sorry, I don't understand. So, what are you going to be doing as part of the negotiations to ensure that this principle is done? Because you're telling us that you accept the principle, it's just best done through another means, the other means being contract renegotiation, but you're also telling us it's not going to be part of the contract. So, how are you going to achieve it?

So, our understanding of the blueprint for the contract is that it does include provision to set out referrals between GP services and local authorities. It's not necessarily going to be called 'ask and act', but it does set out within the inclusion health model how GP practices or public primary care services more generally should engage with local authorities in relation to homelessness. We've also got a pilot duty to refer happening in the Cardiff and Vale inclusion health service. We're focused very much on the emergency department part of that, because that will form part of 'ask and act', but there's a GP element of that as well, and that's linked to supporting development of the service specifications. So, we're seeking to learn how that can work, how we can make it deliverable, and then we'll continue to work with our health colleagues around aligning our policy aims in relation to 'ask and act' and the role of primary care.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you just said. The principle of 'ask and act' is that services ask people about their housing situation when they engage with services, and then they refer them to relevant support services if they're at risk of homelessness. Is that something that's going to be included as part of the GP contract negotiation?

So, we're working with health colleagues to look at how do we ensure that that asking and referral happens, but it won't—. So, the principle of it, rather than primary care specifically being included on the face of the Bill in the 'ask and act' duty. But, yes, we're trying to achieve the same outcome through that contract renegotiation. How exactly that will be phrased and developed within that, we're still working with health colleagues on at the moment. But, yes, we're trying to achieve the same outcome as the 'ask and act' duty, but through a different mechanism with primary care.

That's quite an important detail, isn't it? If part of the intent of the Bill is to prevent and for public service to do that—we know one of the key interfaces people have with the NHS is through primary services—you've got an opportunity here in the Bill to enshrine that as a duty. You've chosen not to do that. You say you have an alternative plan, but it's very fuzzy to me about what that alternative plan involves, and you're not clear yourself of what the detail of that is going to involve. So, again, given that several consultation responses from health stakeholders support it, including primary care, I'm not clear what your alternative strategy is for achieving the aims of the legislation through other means, and I'm not sure, with respect, that you are either.

Well, I think that we can certainly make sure you have a note following that, and, as Hannah has explained as well, on where we're going with our discussions with primary care colleagues and health colleagues on that at the moment.

Okay. That's a bit of a gap, I think, we've identified and it would be good if you could help us fill that, because the committee's unlikely to be satisfied with that gap. Can I ask similarly, then, about the police, why the police aren't included on the list for 'ask and act'?

So, we're in discussions with UK Government in relation to the duty to 'ask and act' on the police. Obviously, there are some challenges with their inclusion, such as cross-border issues. The existing duty to refer in England doesn't apply to the police in England, and reconciling the organisational focus of 'ask and act' with the individual roles of police officers is complicated. But, as I said, we are in discussions with the UK Government on this. The Bill includes a regulation-making power to add organisations in the future should these challenges not be overcome. But, in addition to our engagement, the UK Government's officials have also engaged directly with police forces across Wales in relation to our policy aims and the role of policing and homelessness prevention as well. I don't know if you'd like to add anything else about the work that you've done with the police in Wales.

Yes. We've engaged with all of the police forces in Wales, working across a range of different sectors, to understand how they're encountering homelessness in their work. Obviously, rough-sleeping would be an obvious example, but they are also in people's homes where they may be seeing the wider causes of consequences of homelessness play out. And we want to explore how we can work with neighbourhood policing and others to explore where we can be most effective in terms of homelessness prevention. We also want to work with police around how the multi-agency public protection arrangements process works. There's a bit of a gap in terms of operational practice, where you have high-risk offenders who are going through the MAPPA process and housing becomes a blockage for them. There are improvements we can make between the homelessness and the MAPPA system that sits outside of this legislation that we're working with the police on.

The challenge for us in including the police on the list in time for introduction was a drafting challenge. Police officers carry an individual duty that is quite different to that of a social worker or a probation officer, so we need to work through the detail of that. But we've been engaged with the UK Government and the Home Office for some time around engagement with the police and, from an operational perspective, we know there's support for taking this forward.

In terms of understanding the Cabinet Secretary's response, what you're saying is that because the policing isn't devolved to Wales, because it's done on an England-and-Wales basis, it makes it difficult for us to impose this duty?

It's around the cross—. I don't think it's specifically that, because obviously there are other parts for 'ask and act', I think it's that there are challenges across cross-border issues. So, the existing duty to refer in England doesn't apply to the police in England. So, there's that aspect, but, as I say, it seems to be complicated.

[Inaudible.] Well, as I was saying, is one of the complications the fact that policing is organised on an England-and-Wales basis?

There are complications on this.

It is a complication in that we're asking the police in Wales to do something that the police in England are not doing, and there is a similar duty in England. So, we need to work that through.

Well, we're asking all public servants in Wales to do something that's different in England. That's the whole point of the Bill.

Yes, but we just need to work through some of the details of that. Also, our understanding of how we draft legislation to apply to police versus how we've applied it to other groups on the 'ask and act' list is that it's quite different. The 'ask and act' duty is an organisational duty; it's not a duty conferred on individuals, but police officers in the role of their duty carry an individual duty. So, we haven't completely worked through all of the drafting implications of that. We will continue to do so and hope to bring forward amendments at a later stage.

Okay, that's interesting. Forgive me, I'm riffing here, but is there a possibility of putting the duty onto police and crime commissioners rather than the police officers, on an organisational level as a degree of accountability, rather than on an individual level?

We have been looking at that as part of the drafting process. We've been considering the role of the PCCs, the role of the chief constables, the roles of individual officers. We haven't found a preferred approach yet, but it's certainly one of the options we've looked at.

So, as the Bill develops, are we likely to see something with more clarity on how the police will engage with this duty?

We would hope so, following engagement with UK Gov.

You'd hope so.

Just to clarify, as well, obviously, because policing is not devolved, if they were to be added to the list as well, it would be subject to a Minister of the Crown consent as well. But, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, we have and are engaged with UK Government, and the Home Office specifically, and we're working through things at the moment and would hope to bring forward something in due course. But we need to have those further conversations and try and work through some of these challenges with the UK Government as well.

There are four sections of the Bill that require Minister of the Crown consent, according to the note I have. Can you tell us if you're anticipating any difficulties with achieving Minister of the Crown consent across all of them? How are those conversations going?

Officials have been engaged with relevant UK Government departments for several months now on this. Engagement has involved operational-level discussions about policy aims, relevant Bill sections, and those practical implications should consent be granted. I believe that overall discussions have been positive and the discussions are, obviously, continuing. We're working with Wales Office colleagues to manage the consent process. We're in regular contact to support and respond to any questions either the Wales Office or relevant departments have had. We've engaged directly with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DWP, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office on the White Paper principles. I don't know if officials want to say any more about the discussions that they've had directly, because, obviously, they're their discussions.

The question I really want an answer to is: are you anticipating any showstoppers?

I didn't catch that, Lee.

The question I really want to ask is: are you anticipating any showstoppers?

I'm always anticipating everything at the moment, but I haven't—

We've had positive discussions to date, but, obviously, there's a formal process to go through and we wouldn't want to pre-empt that formal process. So, there's nothing really we can add further to what the Cabinet Secretary said, at the moment.

Chair, there's one area I would like to ask about further, but I see that Siân Gwenllian is keen to come in. I'm not sure if it's on something—

Yes. We have got very little time, actually, Siân, unless it's very pressing.

Well, it's just to make the point that there are constitutional issues developing here, aren't there? What are the implications for the Government of Wales Act, for example, with the discussions you're having with UK Government Ministers? There are big questions regarding devolved rights as a result of the discussion that we're having here about placing duties on the police and so forth, aren't there? So, I'm just making that point really, that there is a need to be very awake to the constitutional implications, and I know that you are.

Absolutely, as I said, we are aware, and discussions have been positive so far. We'll, obviously, keep you very much involved with those developments as we go along.

Okay. Lee.

Just to finish off on the 'ask and act' question, and particularly on the role of schools and colleges, which the expert panel recommended should be included in the list, I'd like to ask again about your reasoning and what feasibility studies you took out about the practicalities of applying 'ask and act' to education settings.

Extensive engagement was undertaken with schools and education unions as part of the workload assessment process to determine the most appropriate approach in respect of education. Following that engagement, I agreed with the Cabinet Secretary for Education that the duty to 'ask and act' will not apply to schools at this time, but will instead strengthen existing support systems and guidance using our existing powers. Schools will continue to have a role to play in homelessness prevention, and it is important to build on the systems that we've already got in place to support children and families. So, our focus is on improving the existing safeguard practices and procedures, developing the exemplar practice, which is under way in some schools, and using powers that we already have available to us through the education Act and the forthcoming review of the 'Keeping learners safe' guidance.

Schools already do an awful lot to support and help children and families beyond teaching, including support with housing and homelessness. I recognise that the White Paper didn't include schools in the 'ask and act' duty. But, whilst there was some support for including schools, as I say, the best approach really is to work with the sector and to develop that existing guidance. But development of the Bill—. During that development, my officials spent time in schools hearing directly from teachers. So, I think that really gave a great engagement and the universal assessment of needs as year groups enter school, and a response based on needs, did exceptionally well in relation to homelessness. I don't know if Hannah wants to say a bit more, just briefly—I know we're short of time—on the importance of the work that schools are doing.

Well, can I just ask—? So, obviously, all of those things would have been considered by the expert panel. Nonetheless, they decided that they should—. They thought education settings should be included in the duty. So, what was it that you heard directly from teachers that persuaded you otherwise?

As I said, we had extensive engagement with schools and education unions as part of that workload assessment, and we feel that schools—. Officials spent time in some of those exemplar schools. And we know that schools do an incredible amount already. They already work with other services to help families in need, they have strong links with families and are well placed to notice when something's wrong. They work closely with local authorities and other services, they know how to spot when a child or family needs help, including housing, and schools must already report when a child is at risk, and that already includes risks linked to homelessness. Hannah, I don't know if you want to just talk about the school work.

Yes. It will echo some of what you've said, but we went out to a number of schools. We also worked really closely with education unions, and worked through this—the new workload impact assessment process, which is new since the expert review panel did their work—to understand how we could work with the teaching profession to meet our policy aims. Schools are a little bit unique in that they already run quite significant safeguarding systems, and so what will be very important for us is that we align or integrate the aims of 'ask and act' into those systems. Creating two systems where they phone two different numbers at the same local authority—which is a risk, if we don't take the time to get it right—is something that will just be overburdensome on the teaching profession, and that's something that we want to avoid.

Where schools are tackling homelessness, they are doing it exceptionally well, and they're doing it exceptionally well because they have no other choice, because it's just so obvious amongst their school population. The learning from schools who are managing that is exactly as you said: doing the work pre intake to school, making it universal, so you're working with every family, so that families don't feel singled out or targeted based on how they're presenting, or the behaviour of their children, or the experience of their children, works. The feedback we had is that the work is very powerful. Families don't like to feel singled out. So, what we want to look at is whether we can do something universal at intake, learn from some of the schools who are then matching need to pathways, and working closely with local authorities to meet those needs. As a slightly better option, it meets our policy intention, but it comes from school practice, it's informed by teachers, and they tell us it would work better. So, we're exploring that further in the upcoming review of the 'Keeping learners safe' guidance, and the existing duties in the education Act give us other opportunities to get this right.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thanks, Lee. Time is very limited, so we're going to move on to Peter Fox and some concluding questions. Peter.

Thank you, Chair. Cabinet Secretary, the White Paper was quite clear that local authorities would be prohibited from using accommodation if it was at a health and safety category 1, I believe. However, the Bill now has watered that right down by saying that local authorities just have to have due regard to that. I just wondered why that was.

We haven't changed our position. The provisions within the Bill that relate to human habitation and dwelling conditions should not be mistaken as a replacement for our commitment relating to the prohibition of temporary accommodation with category 1 hazards. This is an addition, not a replacement. We do not need new primary legislation to make any of our proposed changes to suitability, set out in the White Paper, and I do intend to bring those forward using our existing secondary legislation powers. I'm going to work with local authorities to deliver our suitability proposals in due course, using those existing powers, recognising that some of them are dependent on the increased housing supply and will take time to deliver.

Could I suggest, then, that the language, perhaps, could mislead a little bit, as I just reiterated it, suggesting that we've watered it down? When it was a White Paper, it was quite prohibitive, but now we're saying—. As a past leader, if somebody says you've got to have due regard to something, well, you can have a look at it, but you don't actually have to adhere to it. So, can I suggest that that needs to be rethought, about how that's presented?

If I can go on, then, to co-operation and allocations, I know registered social landlords have voiced concern about the duty on them to not unreasonably refuse a referral from a local authority, and I know that's a similar duty to that which is already in place in Scotland. I know you said earlier how you're engaging a lot with Scotland. I wonder how you've assessed that provision in Scotland and reflected on that for this Bill.

As Hannah said, the officials are very engaged with Scottish colleagues. We've carefully considered the evidence that we've received from Scotland and their approach to this. It does seem that Scotland does have a higher proportion of allocations to homelessness households than Wales, and it is likely that the section 5 power does play a role in that achievement. The evaluation of the power in Scotland shows that, where local authorities and social landlords have that strong working relationship, the power provides a reliable route to housing and enables more long-term solutions, and really does foster that shared sense of responsibility. But I would say that the section 5 power is not a golden bullet. There is some variability within that that we've seen in its application, and there are still some challenges around that implementation. Delays and disputes between local authorities and social landlords, we know, can lead to delays in housing, and, of course, that availability of housing is an issue, despite the power.

Okay, thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Bill does not include the White Paper proposal to give additional preference to homeless households in social housing allocation. Does this not lessen the likelihood of the Bill achieving the aim of increasing allocations to those who are most in need?

During the consultation, many stakeholders made a really strong case as to why giving an additional preference to those owed a homelessness duty may have an unintended consequence and derive a perverse incentive into the system. Homeless households will continue to be a reasonable preference group for social housing, but I am concerned that we ensure that people don't languish for a long time in temporary accommodation. Again, I've listened to the strong feedback that we've received, and, as a result, the proposal to provide an additional preference to those owed a homelessness duty hasn't been taken forward. It has been a difficult decision, and difficult decisions need to be taken by local authorities, as you will know, in relation to accommodation selections. It's not my intention that local authorities pit homeless applicants against each other. Authorities do require that flexibility to consider each case on its merit.

Yes, okay. Thank you. And the last question from me, Chair: the White Paper proposed to allow local authorities to exclude people from waiting lists if they weren't in housing need, and this has turned into a much broader power in the Bill that gives local authorities discretion to prescribe who is and who is not a qualifying person for social housing. I just wondered why you have broadened that out. Isn't that open perhaps to misinterpretation or even abuse?

Well, I think local authorities are best placed to understand the specific needs and pressures in their areas, and I think they should have the flexibility to tailor that qualification criteria as necessary. The provision in the Bill provides an objective standard, which minimises the potential for inconsistent and unfair application of the law. So, if the applications were decided on an individual basis, the risk of inconsistent and arbitrary decisions is higher. So, with increasing demand for social housing, we've got to ensure that that housing is allocated to those in greatest need. So, local authorities expressed concerns that they have those exceptionally long waiting lists for social housing and many of those aren't in housing need. But waiting lists are maintained at an expense to local authorities, and, as I say, many of those aren't in housing need.

With something as important at this, don't you think there should be some sort of standardised approach across Wales, so through the expectations on local authorities? Otherwise, you've got almost a postcode lottery, with authorities treating people in different ways.

Well, the power is subject to constraints. So, we may prescribe a criteria—Welsh Ministers may prescribe a criteria—that can't be used by local housing authorities when deciding which classes of persons are not qualifying persons, and anyone within the reasonable preference group must be treated as a qualifying person for allocation of housing accommodation. So, there are safeguards within this, but the constraints to the power will, I think, mitigate that potential for unintended consequences.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thanks, Peter. Finally, I know Laura Anne Jones had a question on care leavers and the 18 to 21 provision in terms of categories. Laura, would you like to ask that, please?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Chair. We're just wondering if you could explain the rationale for creating the new reasonable preference category in social housing allocations, Cabinet Secretary, for care leavers aged 18 to 21, and why you specifically chose 21 as the upper age limit, and why not older care leavers. And I know you're aware of the dangers of being so specific. I just wonder if you could explain that.

Diolch, Laura, and thank you for that. I know this is something that, in our previous roles in committee, we worked on. So, in terms of the reasonable preference, I just think it's going to be really helpful to clarify. The Bill does mirror the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and therefore applies to care leavers up to the age of 25, so it's not capped at the age of 21. So, we're not redefining care leavers in our Bill. Obviously, that's beyond the scope of this Bill; that is very much within the social services and well-being Act. The new reasonable preference group is for care leavers owed the new duty, to ensure that young people leaving care have suitable accommodation. I think that, unfortunately, we have seen where care leavers have left care and gone straight into the homelessness system. You know, I very much believe that the ambition of this Bill will see the end of that, because no young person should leave care and go into the homelessness system. So, very clear about that. But we just wanted to make sure that the age is related, that the language is in relation to the social services and well-being Act, rather than something that we've chosen to define ourselves.

Diolch. Have we got time for another little one?

Yes, quickly, if you could.

The White Paper proposed to exempt care-experienced people from 'local connection' for homelessness assistance, but that hasn't been taken forward in the Bill. Obviously, there are dangers around that, which I'd ask you if you could explain.

And also, how will the Bill improve provision for survivors of domestic abuse? The White Paper proposed a duty on local authorities to help survivors retain existing accommodation, so why is that also not in the Bill? Diolch.

Diolch, Laura. I think it would be helpful if we send the paper around about the local connection. You know, I think I've explained why we've had to come to this position. Local authorities will have to owe the duty to people who have a local connection within Wales, but we can certainly send some more on that. And as I've said, I do understand that there will be evidence that some groups would benefit from the exemptions. It's not been possible to deliver the exemptions in the way that we would initially have thought of.

In terms of domestic abuse, I just want to sort of give some thanks for giving me the opportunity on that, because the White Paper proposed that the main housing duty would be able to be discharged if an applicant who was homeless was able to return to accommodation that was previously unreasonable to occupy due to it being unsafe. So, the amendments put forward in section 7 of the Bill now allow this to happen. Under current legislation, survivors of abuse benefit from cross-border exemptions from local connection referrals, but this protection remains in place. We've also widened the definition of domestic abuse to ensure that it's up to date, to include coercive control and economic abuse, and the definition of abuse in the Bill also includes other kinds of abuse that give rise to harm, including modern slavery and stalking.

But we'll make sure that you have that paper regarding local connection, which hopefully will help, but I'm glad to have been able to add that point around domestic abuse as well.

Okay. Thank you very much, Laura. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you to your officials. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. We haven't reached all our questions, but we will write with further questions, if that's okay.

Of course. Thank you. Diolch. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr.