Local Government and Housing Committee

Okay. We've reached item 3 on our agenda today, then, our third evidence session on the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I am very pleased to welcome our witnesses joining us on site, Robin White, who's head of campaigns for Shelter Cymru, and Crash Wigley of Landmark Chambers, and, joining us virtually, Liz Davies KC of Garden Court Chambers. Thank you all very much for coming before committee today. Perhaps I might begin, then, with some initial questions before we turn to other committee members. Firstly, is this legislation needed, or could the aims be achieved without it? Who would like to begin? Liz.

I'm very sorry, my sound cut out at the very last part of your question. Would you mind repeating it?

Yes. It's a matter of whether this legislation is required, Liz, or whether the aims could be achieved without it.

Right. Before I answer the question, I should declare that I was legal adviser to the expert review panel, and I was paid by Crisis in order to undertake that work. I've not been paid by Crisis since the Bill was published, and any work I've done on the Bill, and I'm certainly not paid by Crisis to appear today. So, everything I say today are my own views. I needed to declare that.

No. That's very transparent, thank you.

Thank you. Is it necessary? I think—. I echo what Peter and Suzanne said in the previous session. I think this is transformative, in many ways. The political will of the Welsh Government could probably achieve the abolition of priority need and the abolition of intentionality through secondary legislation, amending the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. But having it as a free-standing—well, it's not free-standing, it amends the 2014 Act, but—as a piece of primary legislation, I think sends a powerful political message about how transformative it is. And there are so many radical points in it—the six-month prevention duty; the abolition of priority need and the abolition of intentionality; the ongoing duty to provide support for up to 12 months after accommodation has been accepted and so forth—that I think to put all that in primary legislation rather than trying to do it through secondary legislation is absolutely necessary.

In terms of is it necessary on the ground, then, yes, because, in some local authorities, despite Wales being on a path towards phasing out priority need and intentionality, those mechanisms are still there. And you heard Peter this morning giving figures for the small amounts of people who are caught by them, but those are still people who are caught by them.

Okay, thank you very much. Are our witnesses here in person content with that response or is there anything you'd like to add?

I could add just a couple of bits. Obviously, I echo pretty much everything that Liz said. And it's worth noting that Shelter Cymru was a member of the expert review panel, although I wasn't; it was colleagues at the time. I think the fact that the expert review panel went through the legislative framework in Wales in detail and came up with a set of recommendations that were agreed by a wide range of stakeholders in Welsh housing and clarified that they felt primary legislation was needed—. I think the report of that panel tells us quite a lot about what is needed. I think, if legislation wasn't needed, they would likely have come to that conclusion.

I know that Liz mentioned is it needed on the ground, and I think that's a really important point as well, because, obviously, Shelter Cymru is a pan-Wales provider of advice services. We helped almost 22,000 people last year. Without legislative change, we don't think that we will see the realisation of a commitment to end homelessness or to make it rare, brief and non-recurring. We think without repealing in primary legislation things like priority need and intentionality, which we've supported for many years, we just won't get the change we need, not least because I would say that having the legislation acts as a driver in of itself to deliver all the other things that are needed to make that possible. The legislation on its own can't do this, but the legislation with commitments on when it's going to come in, clear timelines, can drive the additional funding, resourcing, housing supply that's going to be necessary.

Okay, thank you very much. Just in terms of effectiveness of the legislation and how we could ensure that it is effective, if there's anything you might say on that we'd be grateful to hear it. We know that at the moment lots of the legal duties that exist in theory are not actually effective in practice. For example, local authorities have waiting lists of homeless people waiting to access temporary accommodation. So, in terms of this legislation and what it seeks to achieve, is there anything in particular you might say about how we do ensure that it's effective on the ground?

Yes. And I think Shelter Cymru are probably well placed to speak to that, because I believe this is something we have raised with the committee in the past, and something that—. If I speak to colleagues working in any part of Wales, one thing they will raise with me at the minute is experiences where people are owed a legal duty and it's not being provided to them, some of those cases being really quite harrowing to hear. We have ongoing work to try and address that. But I think it's worth saying that the failure to meet those legal duties doesn't come from a fact that staff in local authorities get up in the morning intending to make illegal decisions; it comes from a lack of resourcing, a lack of funding and a lack of housing supply. And this goes back to what I said about—. The legislation, we think, is a hugely positive step, but it needs all of those additional elements to make it work. The one thing in the legislation that may directly help here is the extended prevention duty. So, presuming we implement that correctly and it works effectively, we would hope to see fewer people reach the stage of needing temporary accommodation, and, hopefully, that increased focus on prevention relieves the pressure on the system, because we know the system is creaking right now.

Okay, thanks very much for that. Just in terms of timing of implementation of the various provisions, is there anything any of you would like to draw to committee's attention in terms of timing and what needs to happen and when?

I understand local authorities' concern about resources and needing time to phase it in, but over—. I mean, 10 years was mentioned this morning; 2030 is in is in the paper, so that's five to six years. It feels like a long time, and obviously political will can change during that time. This Welsh Government is going to want to know that it can move forward on its plans to end homelessness.

I just wanted to say one thing about the waiting lists of people waiting for suitable temporary accommodation. Yes, it is because of lack of resources, not because of ill will. But, as a lawyer, that's a very shocking thing, because there is an absolute legal duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation. And there have been cases in the courts in England referring to the English legislation, but it would undoubtedly also apply to the Welsh legislation, that made it very clear that local authorities are acting in breach of their statutory duty if that is happening. And, indeed, there are cases at the moment going through the English system about whether, as a result of women being disproportionately represented within the homeless population, that means that there is also indirect discrimination. So, there are very serious legal consequences. And, of course, I understand the dilemma from local authorities, but it's one more point that they need to be making in their pleas to central Government for more resources around temporary accommodation. At the moment, they are acting unlawfully and that's a very shocking thing.

Yes, absolutely. Okay.

Can I just add on timelines? I know I've said 'ambitious' already. I know that the legislation plan is to sequence it and different bits will come in at different times. One thing that would—well, two things—that would worry us: (1) is if we don't have a time-bound approach to priority need and intentionality. We think a commitment is great; we want to see it realised for the people we work with. The other bit is: if the allocation elements were to come in first, before we abolish priority need and intentionality, we're quite concerned there, particularly if you've got a deliberate manipulation test in allocations and intentionality—you effectively have got two different ways to try to restrict access to, first of all, homelessness services, and, secondly, social housing.

Thank you very much. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. Good morning. I think we've heard from Liz and Robin about your views on removing the priority need, and I think it's very clear in your paper, Robin, that what you really want to see with that and, also, with the other tests is some sort of clarification around timelines. But particularly around priority need, because we know only eight local authorities in Wales continue to use that, I just wonder whether you've got anything additional that you want to say around removing priority need, because I think your paper does set it out very clearly and you set it out in your earlier answer to John.

Nothing really additional beyond the paper. I really just can't stress enough how much we support getting this change made as soon as possible. Shelter Cymru have lobbied for this for years; this is a potentially transformative change.

Liz, did you want to add anything else?

Only that it has worked in Scotland since 2012, so it's not unprecedented.

I suppose what I'd say, and this relates to the question about effectiveness as well, is that what we're aware of is that these tests are not commonly used across local authorities in Wales. In Wales, we have an incredibly stretched housing and homelessness advice service, with legal aid deserts in large parts of Wales. It is of grave concern to me that local authorities are commonly in breach of statutory mandatory duties, yet what we don't see in Wales is the remedy that ordinary people should have, which is getting legal aid, going to the High Court and getting an order from the High Court requiring the local authority to meet its duties.

That bigger picture around legal aid and access to justice has to be part of making any Bill around homelessness or housing fully effective. But then, in that context, I think having inconsistent or disparate approaches across different local authorities, with a small number still hanging on to priority need and intentionality, doesn't assist the effective provision of advice. I think that's a potential argument in favour of bringing in the abolition of those requirements sooner rather than later.

Thank you. Going on to the deliberate manipulation test, and again, Robin, you made it very clear just now that you don't want to see that alongside the intentionality test, have you got any further views on that, any of you?

If I can come in on that, I'm particularly concerned about the drafting of the deliberate manipulation test. In particular, there's one subsection that I think at the moment is far broader than it needs to be and, perhaps, is intended to be. So, in particular, the subsection is 167A(2)(b)(ii). There are three different ways that someone can be found to have deliberately manipulated the housing system, but the one that I'm concerned about doesn't actually require the individual to have been found to have any intent to deliberately manipulate the system, unlike the other subsections.

Before someone can be found to have deliberately manipulated the system, all it requires them to do is to have done, or failed to do, something in consequence of which they ceased to occupy accommodation that was available and reasonable to occupy, and that before doing or failing to do that thing, they received information, advice or other support from the local authority that was adequate for enabling the person to live in the property. There's nothing in that section that requires the person to have done, or failed to do, something with the intent of manipulating the system. My reading of that section is that, actually, it's not a very different test to intentionality at all.

I would have real concerns if that subsection were passed in its current form, because the other subsections clearly require a certain intent—you know, that you did what you did in order to gain unfair advantage in the housing system or something to that effect. But this one subsection doesn't require anything of the sort; it's very close to intentionality, and, if passed in its current form, my concern is that that is the provision that local authorities would rely on and it would describe a very broad group of people as having deliberately manipulated the system, when, actually, in fact, they may have done nothing of the sort.

Can I just add on deliberate manipulation? I think we'd say this about a lot of bits of the Bill. Obviously, this is not a section that Shelter Cymru would ideally like to have in the Bill, but we understand—we were in the expert review panel—why others have pushed for it. If it goes ahead, monitoring will be really important, so that we understand the extent to which it is being used and if there are any specific types of individual or group that are being hurt by it. I think that does go for a lot of the Bill, though. Monitoring the effect of what's happening here so that we can respond as quickly as possible if there are unintended consequences is vital.

And just your views on the way the Bill creates the replacement for the unreasonable failure to co-operate test.

Shall I go first? I understand the reasoning behind it—indeed, as was discussed in the last session, that came very much out of the expert review panel—but I think all three of them can be tweaked. First of all, in terms of violent and threatening behaviour, clearly, no member of staff should be subject to that. That's a very important principle. But the point was made by Suzanne that this is binary. Once it has been decided that the duty has ended for that reason, you're out of homelessness, you're rough-sleeping or you're sofa surfing, you're probably six months later re-presenting and we have repeat homelessness.

I would like, in that area, for there to be some sort of threshold that not only has that behaviour happened, but that the local authority is satisfied that there is no other way in which they can deliver their homelessness functions to that person. So, they have looked around to see whether there are safe mechanisms of being able to communicate with that person—obviously, not by the member of staff who has been threatened or assaulted. But there needs to be something in the round so that, in effect, there is no alternative, that they have to end the duties.

On the damage to property, I am concerned about it inadvertently applying to someone who's been subject to domestic abuse. You heard the point in the last session.

On the not responding, clearly, there has to be a mechanism by which cases can be closed if somebody doesn't respond, but it shouldn't be punitive. So, there should be mechanisms by which it is easy for someone subsequently to reapproach and not be told, 'Oh, well, we had the homelessness application. It was closed because of not responding. There is no change of circumstances, no new facts, and therefore we can't take a new homelessness application.' That would be very wrong, because not responding is something that one doesn't want to be punitive about. It does happen, but you have to be able to close cases for administrative purposes.

The final thing I would say is it is interesting that, in England, as part of the Renters' Rights Bill, which, as you know, is abolishing no-fault evictions in England, the consequences of a non-co-operation decision are being repealed from English law. So, the relief duty, which, obviously, England is keeping because it has priority need and intentionality, can come to an end as a result of non-co-operation, but that doesn't mean that other duties aren't subsequently owed. That's a change in the law that's going through Westminster at the moment.

I will add here that, obviously, as our organisation is rooted in a belief that everyone should have access to safe, secure housing, unsurprisingly, therefore, we are concerned about ways in which duties can come to an end without that accommodation having been secured. I'm going to say this is one of the bits of the Bill where my colleagues who work in front-line advice picked up and said, 'We will see a lot of cases here as it is drafted.' I would echo a lot of what Liz said. Of course, we really do not believe that it is right that staff at local authorities are subject to violent or threatening behaviour. This is a complicated section to get right in practice.

I support what she said about the idea that, if there is no other safe route, then we should be looking at something. And because we've got in the Bill the idea of reasonable excuse and special circumstance, there's going to have to be a mechanism for local authorities to put in place systems to deal with difficult cases anyway, I would presume. So, I think that could match up quite nicely. It's something that local authorities will have to look at anyway. It could be expanded to ensure that this is one of the few cracks that might be remaining. We really don't want too many people falling through it and experiencing homelessness.

Thank you. Diolch.

If we move on to local connection and your view of the Welsh Government's decision to retain local connection and create a new local connection to Wales test.

Perhaps if I can start on the local connection to Wales test, I think one of the concerns about introducing a circumstance where the main housing duty wouldn't apply is that I can understand the intent of this if somebody's got a local connection to England, and so essentially what you're doing there is saying that there's another place where a referral could be made if you want to have your housing duties met. But there will be some people who don't have a local connection anywhere—so, for example, persons who are living itinerant lives, who have not resided for more than six months in any particular place. The way that this section is drafted is that that person could also be denied the main housing duty, and I think that's an inappropriate outcome in those kinds of circumstances. So I think some care needs to be taken in the drafting of that section to make sure that such persons aren't excluded from the main housing duty.

Can I back that up? That's something Crash and I have talked about. When I read the Bill it seemed to me that that was an inadvertent omission, and I hope you can ask the drafters to look at it. Currently, if somebody has no local connection with any local authority in England, Wales or indeed Scotland, then they are the responsibility of the local authority to which they applied. Crash has made the point that there are some people who move around, who lead itinerant lives, who aren't employed, who simply don't have any local connection. Obviously, the referral mechanisms exist, but they don't exist for somebody who doesn't have a local connection.

I think that I see the politics of wanting to say that the main housing duty only applies to people who have a local connection in Wales, because of the fear of people coming across the border. But as a result of putting that in, inadvertently the existing law that means that people who have no local connection anywhere are the responsibility of the local authority to which they applied will be changed, and they will be left drifting, I'm afraid—almost literally drifting. So I think it is something that the drafters need to look at again. I'm sure it must have been inadvertent, but that's what's happened.

I have two really quick points here. We continue to support the idea of exemptions for certain vulnerable groups from the local connection test. And another plug for monitoring, to be honest. We're trying to build a trauma-informed, person-centred system. There's a risk of referrals into England leading to street homelessness because of the divergence between English and Welsh law. That street homelessness will present in Wales, quite likely, because referrals don't necessarily mean people move. So I think that's something to monitor and watch out for, because we could see quite a visible sign of this test existing.

Just on exemptions, the Welsh Government has said it will bring forward secondary legislation to exempt veterans from local connection in social housing allocations, as is the position in in England. But the Bill doesn't exempt veterans from local connection in terms of accessing homelessness services, so do you see problems and issues there?

As I say, I think we would have supported the inclusion of an exemption for veterans and other groups. LGBTQ people in particular would have been an exemption we'd have liked to see, because we know that they might want to present in a different place because of the circumstances they’re in. I believe there are other regulation-making powers in there where we might see exemptions in the future. I think it's something we will probably continue to push on over the coming years if they are not included on the face of the Bill.

Robin, just in terms of that regulation-making power and the ability to add to exemptions, a different approach would be to, on the face of the Bill, include categories of persons exempt from those local connection provisions, and there would be an ability to remove those exempt persons in future if evidence showed there were unduly negative impacts on local authorities. So, it sort of turns it around, really, doesn't it? Is that a preferable approach as far as you're concerned?

I think we would support that, if for no other reason than the more clarity we can give early, this is—. There are a lot of changes coming here. We completely appreciate local authorities and others, including us as a service provider, have got to manage these. Including it on the face of the Bill would be stronger, I think, but also would give very clear—. We could build it into the initial guidance. We wouldn't have to go through and try and amend what will be hundreds of pages of guidance after the fact. This is an opportunity to get a lot of things right. And the more we get in the Bill now, the better those knock-on elements become later.

Okay. Thanks very much for that. We'll move on, then, to Lee Waters. Lee.

Thanks. I'd just like to ask about the section of the Bill on prevention and the duty to increase the prevention duty to six months. You've already said earlier that you're concerned that some existing legal obligations are not being met because of resource constraints. Are you concerned that this one will also be potentially moot?

Inevitably, yes, because we are always concerned about how you implement these things correctly. We do think that it needs more resourcing and a lot of support for local authorities to deliver. However, you could offer a six-month prevention duty now as a local authority, if you wanted. These periods are minimums; they are not maximums. And we know that places like Neath Port Talbot have reorganised their housing options teams to try and do this. So, there's evidence we can draw from existing local authorities to see how this can work effectively, which is really good.

I think the other thing is that it goes back again to an extended prevention duty could relieve pressure on other parts of the system. Because of the work we do at Shelter Cymru, we don't just believe prevention works, we know it works, because in about 90 per cent of relevant cases that we dealt with last year, we were able to prevent homelessness. In the majority of those, people were able to stay in their existing homes. If you can carve out the space to work with people early in the system and work on prevention, you will see success. And I think that the Bill recognises this and it's a really positive statement of intent, as well as a change to the law.

In practical terms, it creates this new duty to prepare and maintain a prevention, support and accommodation plan for applicants owed a homelessness duty. Do you feel this has been drafted in the right way?

Yes, to an extent. I think this is one of those things that—. This is a place that guidance will actually be really important. We think this is a step forward from the situation we have at the minute. One thing we are aware of is, where similar plans exist already in Wales, there's disparity between how they're done, how they're delivered. I think giving more clarity over a more standardised process will be really useful. I think the inclusion of the review periods is particularly welcome, because, as an organisation that does a lot of reviewing decision outcomes, knowing that there are points in a system where we can work with people to review what's taken place is really powerful. It's good to see that included in the Bill to make sure it happens.

In relation to prevention—and this is another drafting point, and I've got a few of these—one of the things that's really positive is the amendment of the definition of 'threatened with homelessness' and including the period starting when someone gets a notice. I think that's a really important innovation in this Bill. But the language of a written notice requiring the person to give up occupation of a person's accommodation just means a section 173 notice under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, so a no-fault notice. But my interpretation of that is that it wouldn't apply to other kinds of possession notices—so, a serious rent arrears notice, breach of contract notice. Obviously, in rent arrears cases, it's really important for those kind of cases that the prevention duty is kicking in there too. So, I think it's just a question of tinkering with that wording to make sure it's as inclusive as I expect it's intended to be.

And then more broadly on the review powers that local authorities have to do homelessness reviews, is there anything you want to say about that provision?

Does that include the extension of the review?

The new review rights in the Bill.

Yes, and, again, we support the extended review rights. We think that extended review is vital. Bad decisions get made particularly when local authorities are overstretched. Generally, universally, we're not seeing malice there. What we need is to ensure that those review rights are accompanied by access to independent expert advice, because giving people rights, giving them the right to review, that doesn't change that they may not have the expertise or the knowledge to effect them. That's where the work of organisations, including Shelter Cymru but much wider, comes in, and it's good to see it in the Bill. There are some other bits we think could help here, including, say, adding signposting to decision letters, to say, 'This is who you can go to to get support', similar with the PSAPs and signposting to independent expert advice. Free independent expert advice is a really good way to strengthen how that works.

In terms of decision letters, one of the provisions I think is quite appealing is the requirement to make sure that people understand what communications they've been given, if you've written it in plain and simple ways. I guess a lot of that will be down to the guidance, but is there anything we can strengthen to make sure that's effective?

I think there's one way. We have a lived experience project called Take Notice, which has done work with local authorities in the past, to help redraft letters and things like that, to ensure they're understood, and it uses people who've experienced this system, have experienced receiving these letters. It's simple, it's effective. I think, in other parts of the Bill, we've got that element of engaging with those with lived experience. Anything we can do to carry that into other parts of the Bill, to say that those letters are reviewed by people with lived experience, that will probably improve them from an understanding point of view, I would think.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks very much. Siân Gwenllian.

Good morning. Turning to accommodation options for local authorities, the Bill gives a wider range, doesn't it, of accommodation options that local authorities may use to discharge the main housing duty. Do you think this is needed? Will there be any unintended consequences as a result?

Shall I go first?

Yes, go on, Liz.

Thank you. I think it's the insertion into section 76 of the idea of more informal arrangements for accommodation—so, somebody might have been reconciled with their family, or somebody might find, say, a lodging arrangement that would not have previously been covered under the ending of the main housing duty. And it comes from the—. It's a consequence of the abolition of the relief duty, because, of course, under both prevention and relief, then the duty can come to an end where those kinds of informal arrangements have been facilitated by the local authority, and that they're confident that it will last for at least 12 months, I think it is—I'd need to check that—that they're satisfied that the accommodation is going to be available for 12 months and that it's suitable. So, once you abolish relief, then you no longer have, under the current law, that mechanism for more informal arrangements. So, it needed, then, to come into the main housing duty, or it simply—. You'd have an informal arrangement getting facilitated, but the duty would still continue, so it needed to be in there. I think it's very positive that it can only apply where the applicant agrees, so that there aren't punitive consequences if they refuse.

What I would like to see, and it was in the panel's recommendation, is that the applicant should have received independent advice or at least been signposted towards independent advice. You can't make people receive advice, but you can help them get it. I think that that would, in a way, protect local authorities, because local authorities want to be able to have checked everything and shown that they have done everything, so that the duty has come to an end and someone doesn't pop up six months later and says, 'Well, actually, it didn't properly end'. And they could, at the moment, say, 'Well, I didn't agree. I know it looks as though I agree, but I was panicking, I was under duress, I couldn't think straight', and that's a potential for litigation. What the drafters of legislation always want to avoid is lack of clarity leading to litigation. What you want is clarity on the face of the Bill, and if there is, as part of the tick box—. Tick boxes can be useful because they can show that something has been complied with, that someone has been signposted to independent advice—it doesn't have to be legal advice—then I think that that will both add to the rights of applicants in being able to make an informed choice and protect the local authorities when they say, 'Well, the applicant did make an informed choice.' So, I think it's a good thing, but I think it needs a little tinkering with.

I would agree entirely with what Liz has said in terms of it being really important to make sure that it says there is consent to stop these duties in this way. But access to independent legal advice is also really important because that's where, if you do it correctly, you can have those sensitive conversations, to ensure that there's a relationship of trust and people can open up and say, 'I'm concerned about this happening in future and what rights I would have if that happened.' The opportunity to have a real conversation about those concerns with an independent adviser who you really trust is really important to ensure that these arrangements are going to suit that person in reality.

Okay. Diolch.

Thank you. I'll move on. Unless Robin has any comments to make, I'll ask about the other aspect, which is different to what was in the White Paper. The White Paper mentioned prohibiting local authorities from using temporary accommodation if there were category 1 hazards. So 'prohibiting' is what was included in the White Paper, but the Bill only requires local authorities to 'have regard' under this Bill. So, is this change in language significant? Is 'prohibiting'—? Clearly, it's much stronger than 'have regard'. Is 'have regard' going to give the kind of protection that we are seeking?

Okay, who would like to offer—?

No, it's not.

No. There we are.

'Prohibiting' is stronger, and you can prohibit types of accommodation. We've done it with bed-and-breakfast suitability Orders. You could prohibit and put in a long stop, as applies to bed and breakfasts—that there's no suitable accommodation and it's only for a limited period, which, for bed and breakfasts, is different periods of two and four weeks, depending on the type. So, you could turn it around and still have the long stop, and that would be for the extreme cases where somebody is there on a Friday night and has to be accommodated over the weekend and only low-quality accommodation should be found. But this is all about driving up the standards of temporary accommodation. So, the local authorities shouldn't be in a position where all they have is low-quality accommodation. They shouldn't have accommodation that is so low that it's a category 1 hazard—a danger to health and safety. They shouldn't have that on their books. But I think the way to do it is to have prohibition, and if local authorities are saying to you, 'There are some circumstances when, in extremis, we just have to use it', then draft it like the prohibition on bed and breakfasts: have some very short time periods as exceptions.

Okay, so to add timings so that they can conform with the legislation. That's the point you've raised before, in that if the accommodation isn't there, then there are legal implications that are not met, and there's a risk, if we make this too strict, that this could happen with this as well. But if you make exceptions, or timings, rather, perhaps that could help them to keep within the law until the situation improves. Does anyone else want to come in on this?

I want to mention, Chair, the partnership work that is key in this Bill, of course. Are the provisions in the Bill going to make for better partnership working? Is it strong enough to drive that? And is the 'ask and act' duty strong enough to secure the change that we want to see, of drawing everyone together to find a solution to homelessness?

I'll come in there. Obviously, there are quite a lot of bits in the Bill that talk to partnership working, and, in principle, I think that's a really good thing, because it's a recognition that all parts of the public sector and beyond have a role to play in ending homelessness, not least because they all feel the impact of homelessness, health being the obvious one. The cost to the health service is well documented. On 'ask and act', I think we're hugely supportive of the principle; great to see that in the legislation. Inevitably, we would have liked to see the bodies covered go a bit further, and I know this was raised by the Cabinet Secretary in her scrutiny. The exclusion of GPs, education and police does feel to us like we are missing three areas where we know from our work you will find people at risk of homelessness. Our recent work has shown, for example, every school in Wales has about one classroom's worth of children on the social housing waiting lists. Now, not all of those, obviously, will be in acute housing need, but it's a good example of just how prevalent housing needs might be in schools. Children also do have a tendency to tell their teachers things, so quite a handy route there. And police is another one, where we've worked with the police on many occasions over the years where police have been present at evictions. They are literally standing there when an eviction might be being made from a property. Having a duty on them to refer in that—. There is no way they cannot see that in front of them, so it would be a really powerful duty that then they'd have to act on.

Okay, Robin.

Crash, do you think that the Bill is strong enough in terms of provisions to facilitate this partnership work, and do you think that this duty is specific enough in terms of 'ask and act', or do you think that we need to tighten it up in any way in order for what we're trying to do through this Bill to actually happen?

I think the duty is a good one to have, the 'ask and act'. The question will be how we ensure that the professional people who have the duty have the training to know how to identify when they're dealing with a patient or a student who is at risk of homelessness. One way that you could make this stronger is perhaps to include some kind of statutory duty in terms of training, but you're talking about professional people, people who will have some kind of professional curiosity about these things, who probably have that desire to be trained in spotting the signs of when a student is at risk of homelessness, because perhaps there's a relationship breakdown or there's some kind of problem at home. It's something to consider, but I think that the duty in 94A is quite robust.

Thank you very much.

Just on that, Siân, we've heard a view that 'identify and ask' would be better. Is that something you would agree with, or is that not a strong point for you, or—?

I don't have strong views on it. What I would note in 94A is that the 'ask' is asking someone to agree to give their consent for a referral. So, it's not asking if someone's homeless or at risk of homelessness; it's asking for their consent for a referral, and so there's always going to be having to identify people in the background, whether you make that explicit in the Bill or not. In order to make this effective, the training has to be around the identification, because if you understand how to spot the warning signs, then you know who to ask for their consent. So, I see those going hand in hand, but they're about slightly different parts of the process.

I think that's a good point. We picked up, as well, on the 'ask' bit being about asking if you can make the referral, and we need to have ideally a way to ensure that the identification in the first place is happening, either in the Bill—. But, whether it's in the Bill or not, there's going to be a huge amount of work needed to deliver the cultural change and the training to some of these bodies that already have a lot to do. We are a training provider. We've tried to do this with many bodies in the past. We know it's difficult and it will require a decent amount of resource invested by the Welsh Government.

Okay. Okay.

And if I can just come in—. I'm so sorry: I got the Welsh translation of that, so I'm afraid I didn't follow the last point. But just two points. I think that 'ask' is positive, because I think—. In the earlier session, I think that it was you, Siân, who said, 'Well, it could just be a tick-box.' Being just a tick-box is a bad thing, but it's also quite important that there is a record of having asked the person to give their consent to make an application. So, I like 'ask'; I think it's concrete. What I do think the committee needs to think about is the test that applies before public authorities are under a duty to ask, and the phrase in the proposed section 94A(1) is where a specified public authority

'considers that a person in Wales in relation to whom the authority exercises functions is or may be homeless'.

'Considers' is not a word that appears in the 2014 Act, or indeed in any homelessness legislation. The phrase in the 2014 Act that applies to local housing authorities is 'has reason to believe' that a person is or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. And there has been a lot of litigation about how that is a low threshold. And so my suggestion would be that, for consistency, the same threshold should apply to specified public authorities as applies to local housing authorities, and it should be where the public authority has reason to believe that a person may be homeless.

Yes, and you could consider—sorry, that's a poor choice of word, isn't it? One possibility is to have an express duty around a duty to review, identify potential persons who might be at risk of homelessness. That could be an express duty within this section.

Okay. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr, Siân. Laura Anne Jones. Laura.

Diolch, Chair. Good morning. The Welsh Government says that the Bill aims to ensure that no young person leaving care has to present as homeless to access suitable accommodation. Do you think that the Bill will achieve this aim?

I think it certainly is a big step forward in this and in trying to shift that requirement on to the relevant social services, rather than using the homelessness system as a backstop. We don't have a lot to say on this because it's one of the areas we think is quite good in the Bill and we're supportive of it.

Diolch. Does the Bill strike the right balance, in your opinion, in its approach to social housing allocations? Is there a risk of allocation provisions not being implemented as intended? Are there effective legal remedies in place to ensure that allocations take place in accordance with the law?

You've already heard my real concerns about the deliberate manipulation test, and I think that that answers part of your question, so I won't repeat those.

I think there's a lot in the social housing allocations bit, some of it very good—for example the ability of local authorities to request that allocation from RSLs in cases of homelessness. That should be a really positive way to try to ensure that we get people the homes they need. We have, as an organisation, some concerns about the qualifying persons test. We understand the arguments being put forward, and the fact that reasonable preference categories would be covered by the qualifying persons is a good thing. So, that's tight. But we believe that people are the best judges of the best housing options for them, so we would prefer not to have a qualifying persons test. There's a risk that you end up with 22 different qualifying persons tests, which would be a lack of clarity, not an improvement on clarity.

I also have some questions about whether it answers the point that the Welsh Government have said about better understanding housing need. Waiting lists are not a great proxy for housing need, but that's because they're not meant to be a great proxy for housing need. What they are, what they do show us, is a really good example of the demand for social housing and, to be honest, I'm really interested in the demand; how many people think that they would be better off in social housing is really useful and we risk losing that. And then I think you've heard what we've got to say about deliberate manipulation. So, I think a mixed bag on this one, it's fair to say. And I've also mentioned the timing elements: we wouldn't like to see all of these allocations bits coming in while we've still got priority need and intentionality in the background as well.

Can I just come in? The ability to specify qualifying and non-qualifying classes came in in England in 2012. It caused a lot of litigation, and the drafters of this have avoided a lot of this litigation. Some local authorities specified classes of people [Correction: non-qualifying classes of people] who had a reasonable preference—the homeless—and the High Court said that that was unlawful, but what local authorities in England can do is have a residence criterion, for example—different criteria, but it's usually residence—which might include people who have a reasonable preference. So, they are allowed to have criteria that catch individuals who have a reasonable preference; they just can't specify classes. Now, the drafters of this have met that, and I think it's excellent, because if someone has a reasonable preference—as I read it, and I would like the committee to make sure that this is right—then they cannot be specified as a qualifying person, whether they fulfil a residence requirement or not.

The other area that local housing authorities in England ran into as a problem is discrimination. And there were a lot of cases about sex discrimination on residence criteria, for example, women who were fleeing domestic abuse and quite obviously were more likely to move from one district to another. And so the residence criteria were struck down in that respect for potential sex discrimination. There were race discrimination points about refugees and Travellers and so forth. So, I think there will need to be very careful guidance about making sure that classes of non-qualifying people do not inadvertently lead to indirect discrimination against one of the protected classes in the Equality Act 2010.

Diolch. Thanks, Chair.

Can I follow up on that? I think, yes, the other side of the coin of giving local authorities the discretion to specify non-qualifying classes of person is that they have to use that lawfully. And that is an area where I expect we will see legal challenge going forward. So, that's a potential consequence of giving them that power—that it opens the door to potential legal dispute.

The other point that I think is important to make around the manipulation test is that the sort of consequence of being found to have deliberately manipulated the system is that you lose your reasonable preference, which is quite an all-or-nothing, binary approach. There might be more flexible ways to deal with when there have been findings of deliberate manipulation. For example, it might allow someone to be deprioritised within the classes of person who have a reasonable preference. And there might be benefits to giving local authorities a bit more discretion, rather than an all-or-nothing thing, in how they react to cases where someone's found to have deliberately manipulated the system. Because, actually, that's going to refer to potentially quite a broad range of different kinds of behaviour and where people have different kinds of needs. So, a more flexible approach might be useful.

I think that's right.

Okay, thank you, all. Okay, Laura Anne—are you content?

Yes, thank you.

Okay. Well, thanks very much, Liz, online, and Crash and Robin here in person. Thank you all very much for giving evidence to committee this morning. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy.

Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, there was one particular drafting error that I wanted to raise, or a potential drafting error. And my concern is the way that—. It's clause 38. It's the new section 160B in the 1996 Housing Act, and this is the clause around social landlords having to take persons from the common housing register. My concern is that, as it's drafted, it's so broad that it would appear to apply to social landlords' non-social accommodation. So, they'll have intermediate rent accommodation—where, essentially, they're acting more like a private landlord—that would never be typically rented out to persons on the common housing register. And I'm just worried; it's probably not the intent of this clause, but it's drafted so broadly that it could be read as preventing them from renting out such accommodation to people not on the housing register. I don't think that's the intent and I think that needs a careful look at.

Okay, thank you very much indeed. Okay. Thank you all. Diolch yn fawr.

Item 4, our fourth evidence session on the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome here in our committee room Katie Dalton, director of Cymorth Cymru, and Sian Aldridge, director of operations for the Wallich, and joining us virtually, Kate Perry-Jones, head of services and survivor engagement for Welsh Women's Aid. Croeso, welcome to you all. Perhaps I might begin, then, with a couple of initial questions. First of all, is this Bill needed, or could its aims be achieved without this proposed new legislation?

My view is that it is absolutely needed. We had many, many deliberations within the expert review panel about whether some of the ambitions of the proposals could be met through policy or guidance versus legislation, and we made very clear decisions on those areas where it was felt that legislative change was required.

I think, from my perspective, so many of the barriers that currently prevent people from getting the help that they need are so firmly embedded in the legislative framework, and therefore only legislative change would be able to remove those barriers and ensure that people get the help that they need.

I think the other thing to remember is that the context has changed greatly since the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. We've had the COVID pandemic, so we know a lot more about what was hidden homelessness. We have much higher numbers in temporary accommodation, which I'm sure the committee will reflect on during this process. But we also have, I think, a change in culture, so a better understanding of the impact of trauma on people who are caught within the homelessness system. They need to be more trauma informed, and I think changes in the housing market as well mean that what was viewed as world-leading legislation in 2014 with the 56-day prevention period is no longer sufficient to be able to resolve people's housing issues, and extending that, therefore, to six months, is necessary.

I also think, finally, the 2014 Act was quite narrowly focused on housing-related organisations, and what this Bill does is really widen that out to other public services, recognising that this is not just a housing issue and that many other services have a very important part to play in the prevention and alleviation of homelessness. So, I think those are the main reasons, really, why legislation is absolutely necessary.

Okay, thank you for that. Anything to add from Sian or—?

Very briefly, from a support perspective, we absolutely believe that new legislation is urgently needed. As Katie's already alluded to, there are some shortcomings in the existing provisions, meaning that support can be denied or withdrawn, and people are falling through the gaps. This, as we know, leads to further trauma, and extends people's homelessness. We see that in our services, so we absolutely believe that this is needed in order to address some of the issues that are currently there. And, as Katie said, the trauma-informed approach that we're seeing through this is extremely positive and we welcome it.

Thank you very much. Anything to add, Kate?

My colleagues have absolutely said it all. I know we've got a lot to cover today, so we completely echo those thoughts and beliefs that legislative reform is well needed, and now is the right time to do that in this respect.

Thank you very much, Kate. A further question from me before we turn to other committee members. In terms of resources or other factors, what needs to be put in place for the aims of this Bill to be realised in practice?

I think the Bill will need to be well resourced, and the Welsh Government has set out the estimated costs for implementation of this Bill. That's one element of this. So, there are costs associated with direct implementation of particular measures within the Bill, and then I think there are separate conversations about wider resourcing of things like social housing supply going forward, and also the housing support grant.

I think it's important to recognise the difference between those, the resourcing that is within the impact assessment that is directly connected to these changes, but also the bigger ask around investment in capital for social housing into the future, and also housing support services as well. Resources will be needed. I think it's likely that there'll be resources needed at the start of this process. Broadening out some of the duties to other public services means that there's some education, learning and training that needs to be done so that those public services understand homelessness and are able to act in the right way according to the intent of the legislation. But I think that, over time, the assessment is that that will lead to reduced costs on services.

What we certainly hope is some of the preventative measures, whether that be the extension of the six-month prevention period or the prevention that we expect to see from the public service duties, will end up relieving pressure on local authorities and on temporary accommodation. And then, when you also take the improvements in social housing allocations, again, that will, hopefully, mean more people are moving out of the homelessness system more quickly, and, therefore, moving into more sustainable accommodation and reducing that temporary accommodation bill.

So, I do believe this is an invest-to-save piece of legislation, but it will need resourcing upfront in order to make sure that the intentions of this legislation are carried through, and then, as I said, that continued commitment from whoever forms the next Government and subsequent Governments to build social housing and to continue to invest in housing support services.

Thank you very much, Katie. Again, Sian, Kate, is there anything you'd like to add?

You'll hear this a lot today: I agree with everything Katie said. But, in addition to that, from a service point of view, we're really keen on the guidance that will be produced alongside the Bill. A lot of the stuff included in the Bill will need strong guidance to ensure that the Bill is delivered in the way it's intended. Implementation is as important as the Bill itself, so how that's implemented, the timelines for that, which we've probably got views on and may come to.

And I think training. I'll talk a lot about being trauma-informed today too, and whilst we're really keen and we're pleased to see trauma-informed working included in the Bill, there'll be an element of training those staff in order to deliver that authentically. So, I think those are some extra resources that will need some time to think about.

I completely agree. You'll probably hear me say, 'Yes, I agree with Katie' lots today. From our perspective, I think what we want to be really clear about is we've seen some marvellous examples over the past years of legislation where perhaps the guidance for the front-line teams delivering what the legislation mandates is falling short of giving them the absolute clarity in decision-making processes and what is expected. We want to ensure that that's absolutely crystal clear for everybody involved, but also in terms of transparency for survivors of abuse, anybody else who may be homeless and needing to access provision, what it is that they can expect and what it is we're saying they're entitled to. That transparency, clear language and documents that aren't necessarily framed from a legal perspective so they're really understandable for everybody involved is absolutely critical to the first-class implementation of this, absolutely.

Thank you very much. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much. Good morning, everyone. I want to look at some of the tests that are being removed and the new proposals within the Bill. I think your views on removing the priority need and intentional homelessness tests are quite well known, and certainly, looking at the papers that you provided, particularly yours, Sian, you have very strong views on that. The fact that the Welsh Government has managed to—. There are only eight local authorities now that use priority need, because they've been encouraging it since the 2014 Act. What I'd particularly like to listen to is your views on when you think this should be done. I think, Sian, you said that it could be ended immediately with limited impact. We heard from the Minister last week that it's likely to be 2030, which is a significant time away. I think I know your views on removing it, but your comments around the timeline would be really interesting. Thanks.

I think I'm volunteering to go first on a few of these. Yes, absolutely, Lesley, I completely agree that these need to be abolished. I would support them being abolished immediately. My view is that they are used so little by local authorities. You've heard earlier today, and you've stated that only a minority of local authorities use both of those tests, the numbers are very small, and if you look into the detail, there are a couple of local authorities that are in the main using them, to the exclusion of others.

Through the COVID pandemic, we've moved to that 'everyone in' approach, and then in order to bridge that gap further, the addition of an eleventh priority need category for people who are street homeless means that effectively there should be very few people at all who are not found in priority need, but we know that in some local authority areas, that is still being utilised. My view very strongly is that this is an exclusionary measure, it is not about giving a small group of people an advantage, it's about excluding a small group from being able to get the very basic help through the homelessness system.

We will go on to discussions about access to social housing preference and all the rest of that later, but this is a basic fundamental right to access help when you are homeless, and I do not believe that twenty-first century Wales should be excluding people from that. I believe that we are so close to the abolition of it, and there are so few local authorities using the system, that I would like to see that implemented much, much quicker.

Just to add, as you said, the evidence we submitted absolutely echoes everything Katie said. We absolutely believe that it could be abolished straight away. We've all just spoken about the very few local authorities that still use that test. We don't believe it'll have an impact on those local authorities, and believe that 2030 is absolutely too long to wait to see the complete abolition of that, so we absolutely implore for that to be removed as soon as possible.

Kate, do you want to add anything?

Nothing further to add other than my agreement with what's been said already.

Okay, thanks. I'd like your views on the new powers in the Bill around deliberate manipulation, please.

I think it's fair to say that we have reservations about this. It's not something that we would have actively chosen to place in there. I think one point that I'd really like the committee to take away, which is not just on this issue, but on the Bill as a whole, is that this is based on constructive compromise. I was a member of the expert review panel, and there were many things that the panel agreed on, and there were some things that the panel really disagreed on. I think, for some of us, red lines were around things like intentionality and the abolition of that. For others, there were concerns that that would lead to manipulation of the system to get quicker access to social housing. There were different views on local connection, for example. There were some differences about how the allocation system would work.

The only way we managed to get the report and the recommendations from the expert review panel was that people conceded on some issues that maybe would not have been their preference, but we, I think, are all grown-ups and recognise that the only way we make legislation where we're taking into consideration the different stakeholder perspectives is if we do make some concessions on there. I think there are elements of this Bill that I wouldn't have actively chosen to be in here, and this is one of them, but I also recognise and empathise with the views of other stakeholders, in this particular case probably local authorities and social landlords, about the concerns about managing resources. I might not agree with them, but I understand their perspective. We want to see a well-rounded Bill that makes a fundamental shift towards our ambition to end homelessness, but that means that none of us are going to get a perfect Bill. That is for me, for Sian, for local authority colleagues. I think that important principle of compromise is critical to this.

So, while I do not like this provision, and I think that there are many people who are in crisis with experience of trauma, who are struggling with mental health issues, with substance use issues, who are escaping abuse and exploitation, who could fall foul of this, I accept that this is one of the compromises that goes probably in hand with the intentionality abolition. My view is that it is much better to get rid of intentionality, which is at the start of the process and prevents people from getting the basic homelessness help that they need, than the allocations process. I'm not comfortable with it, but I think it's one of the trade-offs in the Bill. I think there are many things that all stakeholders are uncomfortable with within the Bill, but in the spirit of compromise and having a Bill that I think, overall, is really progressive, there are things that we will say in front of committee we're not happy with, but we accept that that is likely to be part of the Bill going forward. I hope that makes sense.

Perfect sense. Thank you.

Again, absolutely what Katie has said. Fundamentally, we don't support the introduction of the deliberate manipulation test. But it's a compromise that I think needs to be made, in order, as Katie said, for the 70 per cent of this to go through and have such a positive impact; it is progressive, and we do have to find ways to compromise in order to do that. What I would add is I'd like to see the data—if this goes through in the Bill—on when this is used, and closer monitoring and scrutiny of when it is used, so that we can really understand if this is something that needs to be there at all, and maybe, in time, it's something that could be removed.

From my perspective, working with people experiencing homelessness, we don't see people trying to deliberately manipulate a system. We see people who are experiencing trauma, who've experienced complex trauma throughout their lives, and that has to be taken into account. Because my fear, I suppose, is will those people who are not deliberately trying to manipulate, but, in fact, can't actually communicate or work with the system as it is, be penalised at that point. As Katie said, it is good that it's seen later on. The abolition of intentionality takes it out at that first step of access and support. However, I'm still wary of it. It's something that we can compromise on, but we must monitor and review.

And guidance will be absolutely critical—so, if this does remain in the Bill, the guidance around this. What I would expect is there to be many steps before you reach this, which are about being trauma-informed, understanding the circumstances that are affecting that person's life, and understanding why some of those outcomes may have happened. Because it is often, as Sian said, far more complex than it can appear. So, guidance and monitoring are absolutely critical, if this does go forward.

Thank you. And finally, just your view on the new test that is proposed in the Bill around unreasonable failure to co-operate.

My recollection of the discussions in the expert review panel is that it was felt that the current test is too broadly drafted, and, therefore, there are people who have their duties discharged under this element, when it is in fact a circumstance of their homelessness, a circumstance of their trauma and other things going on in their lives, which means that they are not sometimes great at communicating or responding to the local authority. We strongly oppose duties being discharged based on that. I think we all can appreciate how difficult it is, if you're experiencing homelessness, to be responding to things, turning up at the right time, when you might not have a home, to be able to even keep track of that. We were supportive of trying to narrow that, so that it excluded fewer people.

I think, with regard to the two additional parts of this, so that would be the violent and threatening behaviour and the damage and destruction of property, I would say that we have concerns about that. I want to be clear that we do not at all support circumstances where front-line staff are being abused and threatened with violence or people are being actively violent towards them, and there absolutely needs to be protection for staff within that. I want to make that absolutely clear. But I think there are concerns about this not necessarily being trauma-informed, about people who have faced significant trauma who have often been let down by multiple public services over periods of, sometimes, 10, 20 years, sometimes since they were a young child. There's a lack of trust and, I think, a likelihood that they are triggered, sometimes, by some of the systems that they find themselves in.

We know that, scientifically, an impact of persistent trauma is that people struggle to regulate their emotions, and we know how that can present itself. So, my fear would be that a traumatised person is triggered by something and presents in an emotional state that then ends up with this duty being ended for them. So, they make me uncomfortable. I think, certainly with the damage of property, there are particular concerns about people who might be experiencing domestic abuse because there's reference to someone who lives with you, and that could play out. I absolutely know that that's not the intent of the Welsh Government, but that needs to be safeguarded. And again, if these remain within the legislation, I would expect there to be really strong guidance about being trauma informed and there being several steps before you reach the point of ending the duty.

I think, for me, the punishment of ending a duty feels like a very big stick—you know, it's quite binary, isn't it? It's not, ‘You will be given a cooling-off period, you'll be asked to return in a couple of weeks for this to be reviewed.’ It is an ending of a duty, and that's a really serious step to take and that's what makes me uncomfortable. I feel that it has the potential to capture lots of traumatised people who are going through a really difficult time, and that, as I said, is a really substantial punitive measure to result in, if someone's duty is completely ended. So, if it does remain, guidance will be really, really critical, particularly for protection for marginalised groups—you know, the interpretation, being trauma informed, the steps that you would take in advance of that, and particular provision around domestic abuse survivors as well.

Kate, did you want to say anything, because this has come up in all of our evidence sessions around this issue, if someone's house is destroyed by a partner in relation to domestic abuse?

Yes, absolutely, thank you very much. In addition to what Katie has already said, I think it's really, really key that we ensure that the tools that people are going to be using around deliberate manipulation and failure to co-operate really are built in a trauma-informed way. Our member services have got many, many examples of people whose tenancy has been at risk or, in fact, ended because of the actions of their partner or ex-partner during their perpetration of abuse. Actually, there is inconsistency in the way in which that is currently handled, and what we would want to see is that it's embedded within the tools that they use to think about this, moving forwards.

I also think that in terms of the deliberate manipulation, and I hope you don't mind me stepping back a moment, as I just wanted to add a point there about what happens if somebody has a ruling of deliberately manipulating the system due to the circumstances that they've found themselves in. What we absolutely would not want is for that, then, to follow them in their future interactions with housing and homelessness. You know, I think there needs to be a point where we have a scrutiny mechanism in place, as has been raised already, but also we have seen many, many examples of where decisions have been made that then influence future decisions of other local authorities and other bodies in the future. Actually, if we're acknowledging that this is the most difficult period in somebody's life, what we don't want then is for that to create a legacy for all of their interactions, moving forward, with systems. So, I think there needs to be some really careful consideration about what that element looks like as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Lesley? Diolch yn fawr.

May I add something? Sorry.

Yes, Sian.

Just from a practical sense, and picking up on the failure to co-operate, just to reinforce again the fact that people who experience trauma do have difficulty in trusting others, and sometimes it takes a very, very long time to build that relationship. We also know that when they exhibit behaviour that challenges, that's a form of communication that often is born out of trauma and being unable to communicate in any other way at that time. At the Wallich, we welcome people back 11, 12 or 13 times, because it's so important that people have a safe avenue to go to when they feel that they're ready to take the next steps to whatever life that looks like for them.

So, we have to make sure that the guidance is there not to deny people the vital support that they need, and I would really be against withdrawing that support completely, because those are the people who actually need it the most. There are ways in which we can work—. We absolutely support that nobody working in homelessness services should be exposed to violence or aggression. However, there are steps to take before. There are steps in how you phrase that in language, in the ways in which you support people, which promotes behaviour change, and therefore doesn't withdraw support completely. So, I just wanted to reiterate that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Sian. Okay. On local connection, Welsh Government proposed to retain local connection and add a new local connection to Wales test. What do you think of that?

I'm not a fan of local connection, because I think we hear the stories of where that disadvantages people, and often it's people from particularly marginalised groups. We hear from LGBTQ youth who have an official local connection with an area, but they've been kicked out, faced abuse from their family, and it's not a safe place for them to be. We also know that people who are leaving prison, veterans, care leavers may have an official local connection, but that doesn't really marry with the place that they want to be, because their previous circumstances have maybe been challenging.

This was another area on the expert review panel where compromise was key, and I sat around that table and said, 'I could argue with you for three hours about why local connection is bad', but I know that, for local authorities, this is so incredibly important to them in terms of managing their resources. So, I said, 'How about I don't argue with you for three hours, because you're not going to change your position, and how about we think about how we can make it more trauma-informed for some of those groups that we've discussed?' That conversation didn't happen in isolation. It goes hand in hand with things like intentionality and priority need, where we were very keen to see them removed, and there was some sort of reluctance from some partners. So, this was all part of that compromise approach. As I said, we don't like local connection, but we understand why it is very important to local authorities, and we accept that.

I think that we're really disappointed that those exemption groups that were suggested by the expert review panel are not being taken forward in the legislation. I don't claim to understand all the legalities around it, but I understand that the Welsh Government face some complexities in terms of trying to work that into the legislation, and I accept that. We're really disappointed because we do think it harms certain groups. I think the positive thing is that there are powers for Ministers to add to that list in the future, but I accept that there are complexities in terms of drafting the cross-border arrangements, and things like that. But it is a disappointment to us that those exemptions are not within there.

Okay. Is that the same for you, Sian and Kate?

Yes. It might not be a surprise that we've had a long-standing position that local connection actually excludes people from much-needed support. So, I can absolutely agree with everything that Katie has said. Ultimately, we'd prefer to see it scrapped altogether, however, we are willing to accept the pragmatic compromise position agreed by the expert review panel to retain it, albeit with additional safeguards, and it takes us on to say that those safeguards need to be monitored, they need to be applied consistently. I think it's really important that parts of this Bill will need to be monitored in how it's applied across Wales, to make sure that that's fair and consistent, and uphold the exemptions and actually look to increase those exemptions in the future, should they need to be added to.

On the exemptions, there'll be a regulation-making power to add categories, but an alternative approach would be to put on the face of the Bill exempt categories, and then, if that was subsequently seen to impact too greatly on local authorities, to change that position. Is that something you'd prefer as an approach?

Yes, that would be our preferred approach. My understanding is that—. I think local authorities have been cautious about this because of resource management, but I also think there are issues around managing cross-border and there being the establishment of two quite different homelessness systems in England and Wales. And I think that, as ever with legislation that has an impact on cross-border issues, caution probably needs to be taken in making sure that the intended outcome is met. That personally would be my preferred approach, but I understand the need to navigate this quite carefully in terms of those issues around complexity of drafting.

Okay.

Yes, I absolutely agree. I think that, actually, they could be included on the face of the Bill and it would be monitored, the impact. We understand the nervousness of the local authorities, we absolutely do, but just like the removal of some of the priority need and the fact that, actually, it didn't have the impacts that they thought it might have, and only eight use that particular test, I do think that, actually, it could be managed. And if it did get to unmanageable levels and resources couldn't meet that, then that's the point to review it. I'd be worried that, in not putting them in, actually they won't ever appear, so I would much rather see them at the front, and let's have grown-up conversations if the resources aren't able to meet the needs. Yes, that would be my view.

Okay. And Kate, similarly?

Absolutely. I completely agree with both of the speakers already, and obviously we are delighted that the exemption for survivors of VAWDASV is included in the Bill, because it's absolutely critical to the way that refuge system works, in fact across all of our five nations. It's absolutely critical that that remains and so we're really pleased to see that reflected in the legislation. We would absolutely be supportive also of that capacity being front-loaded, as described by colleagues already.

Okay, thank you very much. Siân Gwenllian. Siân, you wanted to come in?

Yes, I just wanted to know what groups you would prioritise for setting on the face of the Bill as exemptions to that local connection. We heard in a previous evidence session they mentioned individuals with no local connection to an area because they wish to move around, et cetera. So, which specific categories and could you perhaps put them in order of priority of which ones you would exempt on the face of the Bill?

Diolch, Siân. Yes, to agree with the point about those who have no local connection, I think that is a drafting issue rather than an explicit move to provide those people with no connection. So, I think that's probably separate to the exemption. That's about making sure that the Welsh Government is confident in its drafting that that does not fundamentally change the existing law that enables people with no local connection to be able to get that help in the local authority where they present.

I think that, for some of the groups that we would have advocated to appear, to either have an exemption or special circumstances, I think people who are leaving prison, people who are care leavers, veterans—so, people who, as a result of their engagement with other public services or systems, may not have a conventional local connection. I think some of the other groups—and we led the experts by experience work with over 300 people that helped to create the expert review panel recommendations—certainly LGBTQ youth were a group that were affected significantly by local connection. And also people—which is probably impossible to define in law—who are in recovery from addiction, or people who are trying to escape cycles of problematic behaviour and engagement with the criminal justice system, for whom the people in their locality do not necessarily assist them in moving away from those behaviours, and actually people who might have worked really, really hard to get clean, to stop engaging with criminal activity, and feel that they need to have a fresh start somewhere else to make that a success. As I said, that's really difficult to define in law, but those were some of the people I engaged with through the experts by experience work, who were so desperate for a fresh start, but staying within their local authority area was a real challenge to them doing that.

Can I pick up on that, because that is absolutely what we see? Having worked with people experiencing homelessness for 17 years, we see people who need to move away from the area in which they have a local connection because of those very reasons, and we've seen over the years where people haven't been able to do that and have had to go back that, unfortunately, they often return to those behaviours, often linked to substance use, alcohol, because it's really, really hard for people to move away from the circles in which those behaviours are often encouraged. So, I would really advocate for something to be put in to exempt them, because they really want to make those changes, but they have to have the conditions in which it's possible for them to make those changes. So, we would absolutely support that group to have that fresh start and to rebuild.

Thank you very much. Laura Anne Jones.

Diolch. Good morning. What is your view of the new duty to provide support to retain accommodation? Will it be effective, and what will it need in terms of resources? It's been suggested there'll be an additional £7.8 million annually. Diolch.

We're really supportive of this. I think it's so well known that having a roof over your head is one thing, but having the support to help you to maintain that accommodation is absolutely critical. Importantly, this duty will apply to those who need it, and hopefully the other provisions within the Bill about assessment and the prevention support and accommodation plans—I always forget the order of those words—will help to make sure that that need is assessed and the appropriate mechanisms are in place to make sure that people get the support.

I think we've queried how it's drafted. Originally it was proposed as a duty to provide support, and now it's a duty to help to retain. I'm not sure whether that makes any significant difference, but we'd be interested in understanding that a little bit more. I think the fear is that support is well understood as a support service. If it's a duty to provide help to retain, could that get watered down and therefore not provide the level of support that people need?

I think that it's critical to prevent repeat homelessness. This is going to be huge to stop people from coming back round. In terms of resources, this is another thing that will be an invest-to-save resource, because it's probably much more expensive for someone to go through an eviction process and end up in homelessness than it is to provide that support service to them.

I think it's also really important to provide assurance for local authorities and registered social landlords. If they're taking people from homelessness into their social housing stock, the No. 1 thing that they always ask for is the provision and assurance around support services to give them the confidence to take people. I think my only challenge to this is the capping at 12 months. I think that if we're going to be person centred, we know that some people will need it for far less than 12 months, others will need it for more. I think that putting an arbitrary cap on that is unhelpful, and we would like to see that either removed or there be something added to give local authorities the ability to extend that in line with need.

On the resources, I think what I said earlier is important. I know the figure of £7.8 million has been quoted. I think that's about the changes in this legislative framework—the assumption of what that will cost. I think what is entirely separate is having a well-funded housing support grant that enables local authorities to meet need, and for staff to be paid a good wage to enable retention and recruitment of good-quality staff to deliver better outcomes. What I wouldn't want the committee to forget is that that resourcing is probably a separate issue, but just as important in terms of the sustainability.

Yes, absolutely. I won't repeat anything Katie said. Just to put a practical sense to it, I want to talk about Housing First, because when you look at Housing First in terms of the principles and you look at the support, that's open-ended for a reason. That's because I think putting a cap of 12 months on any support can be harmful, because people have worries, anxieties about when that support ends. The Housing First model shows that providing that open-ended support can help people to retain accommodation and they have a safety net, and I think that is imperative.

Just to just to pick up on the HSG funding there for longer term support of people, it has to go hand in hand to ensure that people receive that support. We know it can take years of support for somebody to truly become independent, and some people won't ever become independent—they'll always need an element of support, and that's okay. So, that 12-month cap probably is that main part there that I'd like to see changed.

Thank you. If I can move on—you've already touched on this, actually—how effectively do you think the Bill will assist survivors of domestic abuse?

Perhaps I could come in here, if that's okay. We absolutely welcome the legislation for all the reasons that we've discussed already today, and I think particularly expanding the legislative framework to incorporate the 2021 definition from the Domestic Abuse Bill is absolutely appropriate. We're acknowledging that it is not a linear view of domestic abuse that we're addressing as part of this Bill, so that is excellent progress from our perspective.

We'd also really like to see, in the data that's captured about homelessness duty, the incorporation of some specific data about VAWDASV, because we have various mechanisms to record data around that, across many of our services and many of our statutory agencies at the moment, but this is a really good opportunity to put some specific measures in there, so that we can really gauge the scale, and our ability to respond to it. So, that would be a key area of focus for us.

And also what we'd really like to see is some scrutiny around the discharge of duty or non-acceptance of duty that goes beyond what might be delivered on a local authority basis. Because I think where we have got some concerns is about duty discharge and perhaps failure to co-operate, deliberate manipulation, things like that, perhaps not being delivered from a trauma-informed perspective. What that mechanism looks like to scrutinise those decisions, I think, will be really key in helping to share lessons learned, best practices, and really mitigate that in a meaningful way.

We do have an area of interest that we'd like to be clarified, and that's around section 75 of the amended Bill. There's a phrase in there about the immediacy with which somebody is fleeing, and I'd just like to draw your attention to the circumstances that somebody might find themselves in when they flee. They may be able to secure themselves some short-term accommodation with friends or family in order to keep themselves and their family safe, but that is usually quite time-limited and a bit of breathing space for somebody to decide what it is they want to do next.

That may break down, it may not be appropriate for them to stay there, it may be overcrowded. It may well be refuge provision that they do need. Having that immediacy clause in section 75 provides quite a grey area, and I think it's open to a lack of consistent application between local authorities. So, we would like to see that firmed off. What are we saying 'immediate' means? Therefore, local authorities will be much clearer about what they are doing in that scenario.

The last point for us is the tools. I know we've mentioned this already, but the tools that we would like services to have, to be able to work with the legislation, to be able to know what their expectation is, and really clear guidance across local authorities, so that we get this right for anyone experiencing homelessness, but specifically for survivors of VAWDASV, is absolutely integral. Thank you.

Diolch. There are a number of measures in relation to care leavers, which is unsurprising, because the Cabinet Secretary and I and others in a past committee did a lot of work in this area. What is your view of those measures? Will they be effective at helping care leavers to access accommodation, in your view? Diolch.

I think that for people leaving care, this Bill has probably got the most measures within the legislation that will help them. I think the clarity around the responsibilities between social services and housing is really important. We heard from young people who felt that they were being bounced between those two services and not getting any sort of outcome in relation to their accommodation. So, I think the clarity around that, the joint protocol, should mean that that doesn't happen in the future. And there's reasonable preference for social housing allocation. So, I think there are a number of really positive things in there, and nothing that I would challenge from a care leaver perspective. I think it's overwhelmingly positive for that group.

Diolch. Is it the same for you?

Yes, absolutely.

Brilliant. Thank you. How effective will this Bill be at preventing homelessness for people leaving prison? We've had a lot of evidence with concerns in this area.

I think there are some important provisions in there. I think the alignment of the six-month prevention periods, to make sure that that affects people in prison, is really important. I think that when things are left too late, when people are preparing to leave prison, it becomes highly unlikely that they're going to be able to secure accommodation. So, applying that—although it's not specific to prison leavers—earlier prevention period, I think, will benefit people in prison.

I think the strengthening of the law in terms of the information, advice and assistance that's being provided to people—so, clarification about it being available to people who are located within that local authority area when they're in prison, and making sure that it's not just people who are leaving prison, but people who are within the prison setting. The joint protocol in terms of handling cases—I think one of the things we hear most consistently is a failure of communication between different agencies. The broader case co-ordination protocol element will again apply to people who are leaving prison. And also there's specific reference to young people leaving the secure estate within some of the young people provisions as well.

I think it's really positive to see that prison and probation are within the co-operation duty and the 'ask and act' duty in the public service part of this Bill, and I think that it is in their interests to be in there. It's good to see them really co-operating within this and being willing to place that as a reserved area. That wasn't necessarily going to be the case, so it's really positive to see that they're in there are well.

One thing that I think really highlights—. It's a really small part, but it means a lot to me because it shows you how much experts by experience have had an impact on this. There is a very small part in there that's about protection of property, and that has come because I sat down in a probation service in Bridgend and talked to a man who was willing to share his experience and trauma with me about how his landlord destroyed his property, got rid of his property when he went into prison, and he lost the only photo of his dead child, and that was heartbreaking. It shows the real human impact and the lasting impact. And because of his story and because of other people's stories, there is a line in this Bill that's about the protection of property for people who are entering prison.

There are fingerprints of experts by experience all over these proposals, and that is incredible. In my many years of experience working in many areas of policy across the Welsh Government and with the Senedd, this is the most meaningful involvement of people with lived experience that I have ever witnessed, and to see their fingerprints on so much of this Bill is incredibly heartwarming.

I absolutely agree. I welcome the change to six months, and we do believe that that would have an impact on people leaving prison. But what I would say from a support perspective is that actually the earliest possible opportunity that you can get to work with somebody is the best opportunity. So, that should be a minimum term, because, actually, evidence suggests that it takes time to build the relationships. So, at the earliest point that that can be done is only going to be better outcomes for the person leaving prison, and ultimately the pressures on services when they do.

Just to touch as well on multi-agency working and the case co-ordination model, we're absolutely in favour of multi-agency working because we do see at present people bounce between services, particularly when there's mental health and substance use issues.

And finally, I can't not pick up on Katie's thoughts on the experts by experience, because we are delighted—I'm going a little bit off track—to see in the Bill that there's a duty for local authorities to consult widely. We know that there's nothing better than the genuine power of co-production. We know from the work that Katie and others have done that over 350 people fed into this, and it's helped shape it. We know that the people who experience that often have the answers, and we just need to ask them, listen to them, and try and put that into practice. So, I just wanted to make that point.

Kate would like to come in as well.

I'm in agreement with everything that's been said. And just to echo the point as well, survivor engagement is at the heart of everything we do and we're extremely pleased that this has been the case with this piece of legislation as well. And any ongoing opportunities for that to be part of reflective practices, to be part of implementation processes, is something we'd always advocate for.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate. Thank you, Laura. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. I'm sure we all agree that broadening the homelessness duties to other bodies is key to the work of identifying the problems earlier on in the process. Do you think that the provision in this Bill is going to make that big difference? Is 'ask and act' clear enough? Will everybody understand it? Will everybody understand what that expectation is? Perhaps I could ask Kate specifically, because 'ask and act' is part of the legislation in the VAWDASV area. Does it really work, and will transferring that to the homelessness sphere really make the difference that we're looking to see?

Thank you. In answer to your question, yes, it really does work, with the caveat, though, that the funding behind making sure that people have the tools that they need to be able to ask and act and respond appropriately, and know where they can access support for those people, is the bit that is integral. And I think what we've seen with the VAWDASV 'ask and act' is a tapering of that, and actually the tapering didn't take into account the pandemic, the recruitment and retention issues that we've had across specialist and statutory services, and actually we need to make sure that the view we take of that funding of the process looks far beyond the next three or five or even seven years. I know nobody's got a crystal ball, but we really need to think about that making the difference in the most meaningful way, by thinking long term.

So, yes, absolutely, the approach has been instrumental. Many, many people now have achieved support through going to accident and emergency departments, engaging with midwives, engaging with health visitors, which is the primary group that the VAWDASV 'ask and act' is focused on. We would be entirely supportive of this approach being used. The only concern that we have is that we wouldn't wish the use of that term, 'ask and act'—obviously it brings it in line with Scotland—to dilute the message behind VAWDASV 'ask and act'. We might be in a situation where people will say, 'Have you done your "ask and act" training?' 'Yes.' But which one do they mean? Who's it with? I think it might just be helpful to clarify that we have 'ask and act housing', for example, just to be really, really clear, so that we don't end up then with a confusion between statutory services, within officers working for various different organisations, on which they've done and which is being referred to, because of the obvious similarity between the names. So, in terms of the concept transporting across and being successful, yes, it absolutely will do the job, but with the right resourcing behind it and perhaps with a slight refinement to the name, if I could be so bold.

Thank you very much, because clearly the training is going to be different, so you need two different streams in a way. Yes, I do understand the point.

Katie, do you think that it's clear enough what that requirement will be on other bodies? Have all the bodies that need to be on the list been included at present?

Diolch, Siân. This is a game changer for me. As I've said before, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 brought in many brilliant things here in Wales, and was viewed as world leading in some respects, but was very narrowly focused on housing organisations. So, this is an absolute game changer and one of the things that I think will—or should, if it works appropriately—reduce the pressure on housing in local government and temporary accommodation, because the idea here is that the intervention would happen much earlier and prevent that crisis from happening.

A couple of things. So, the expert review panel and, I believe, the White Paper described it slightly differently. It was 'identify, act and refer'. Part of that was about trying to avoid confusion with the 'ask and act' that exists for VAWDASV. However, I think during drafting it was reflected that different sectors speak very different languages, so when we engage with health, they speak a whole different language to the language spoken in housing, and sometimes communication and interpretation is really challenging. So, I think the reasoning behind this change in language is that they understand what the principle of 'ask and act' is, and if you then explain that it is similar to what you have within the VAWDASV 'ask and act', but we're asking you to apply those principles to homelessness, then people will more quickly understand what that means and therefore be able to embrace it more wholeheartedly, and that is a reasoning that I support. So, I support the name change, but I absolutely support what Kate says about trying to make sure it doesn't at all pose confusion or dilute the understanding and the application of the VAWDASV 'ask and act'.

I'm not an expert in terms of legal drafting, and would never pretend to be. I feel as though the 'ask and act' section is maybe not as clear as it could be. I'm not sure it fully delivers on what I thought the intent was behind it. I think that it could be clearer in terms of the steps that we would expect to be included within 'ask and act', and I think that that's about taking proactive steps to identify whether someone is experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and engaging with them to understand the nature of that, of course asking their permission to make any referrals, which is something that's in there already. And also to make sure that they take a range of actions within their own capacity as a public body, because this shouldn't simply just be an additional referral mechanism to homelessness. The important aspect of this is that things happen that can prevent that from taking place. So, I think there's maybe clarity, and I say that as someone who is not a legal expert, but I think that it would be useful to explore whether there could be greater clarity on the face of the Bill and then guidance, of course, will be really important, the training, the learning, the development and resourcing.

Thanks very much, Katie. Anything to add from—

Diolch. That was a comprehensive answer.

Just to add, I suppose, that the two bodies where we had most concern were education and primary care, the same as Katie has alluded to. But just to say about the 'ask' part, I think we just need to make sure that it's not a tick-box exercise to say that they've asked and that that's sufficient. I think that the previous terminology around—remind me, Katie—'identify, act and refer’, I think may be more around the prevention and delving a bit deeper where possible and where that's able to be done. I wouldn't want to see that as a tick-box, tokenistic, 'We've asked' and we move on. So that was the only additional comment.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Siân? So, perhaps we'll just ask one further question on allocations, really, and whether the Bill will strike the right balance in your view in its approach to social housing allocations. I'm sure that there are many views on what the right balance might be; what do you think?

I remain very, very supportive of the proposals to improve social housing allocations, in particular the section that requires RSLs to comply with requests for allocations for homeless households unless there are good reasons. My view is that this won't affect the majority of RSLs, who are doing excellent work in this area, who have a really strong relationship with their local authority, who are engaging every day on the issue of social housing allocations, and are allocating a very high proportion of people from homelessness into their social housing. I don't think this is going to have an impact on them. But I think what we do know is that, although the data is widely recognised as being very poor, what it does consistently show is huge variation in the proportion of allocations from homelessness into social housing. And, in fact, research commissioned by Community Housing Cymru and the Welsh Local Government Association for the expert review panel process showed that rates varied from 23 per cent to 60 per cent, and there will be some that are allocating much higher than that, as that was a sample. So, my view is that it won't affect those that are allocating really good numbers from homelessness. And my view is also that the local authorities that are doing so should not be shouldering the burden on behalf of the whole social housing sector, and that that should be more evenly distributed. I would like to see those that are not allocating enough numbers from homelessness to up their game. Those are the ones that will be likely affected by this, and I don't have a problem with that because I think that that is a core part of what social landlords should be doing.

And we know from the evidence, from the Crisis homelessness monitor that was published a few weeks ago, that social housing allocations is actually one of the items that is likely to have the greatest impact on homelessness going forward. We've talked today about preventing people from going into the system, but that movement out is equally important, so that we stop having so many people in temporary accommodation. So, we're strongly supportive of that. We're also supportive of common housing registers. There are areas that don't have them—only three at the moment—but that causes confusion for applicants to that system and also in support of accessible housing registers.

We're disappointed that the proposal for additional preference for people experiencing homelessness is not being taken forward. We would have liked to have seen that, but, again, I've referenced a few times in this evidence about compromise, and I want to represent my members and I want to represent those 300 people with lived experience, and I think I have done so in terms of talking about the trauma that they experience. But I think there's also a responsibility on those of us who are key stakeholders to understand that, sometimes, legislation and policy are a compromise—it is necessary. I think striking the right balance is important, and that's why I've not hesitated to raise areas that I have concern with, but I'm very aware that there are different stakeholders with different opinions that you'll hear from and it's important, I think, that we're able to support it as an overall package, and as an overall package, this is excellent as a Bill.

Okay, thank you again, Katie. Anything to add from Sian or Kate?

No, not really, just to echo Katie's comments there and how excited we are to see this coming to Wales. We know it's progressive; we know it's going to have an impact, and I suppose just to say that it needs to be closely monitored and reviewed. But, yes, absolutely, compromise has to be made and we're content with the compromise that has been made on some of the areas of concern.

Okay. And you're content with that, Kate?

Yes, absolutely. We're entirely supportive of the Bill. Obviously, those few areas of concern we've flagged up already through the course of conversation. And in terms of the registered social landlords, we absolutely believe that there are many RSLs doing a fantastic job of opening their doors to families who need it most at the moment, and it is only likely to affect those who perhaps aren't making such appropriate gestures at the moment. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, we want to remove those unfair barriers to social housing, and this absolutely will do that by placing a greater duty. In terms of the Bill overall, we're very, very happy to support it and very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak with you today, so thank you very much.

No, well, we're very grateful to you for the evidence that you've given, Kate—thank you very much. And thanks to Katie and thanks to Sian. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay, committee will break until 1 p.m.

Okay, we've reached item 5, then, and our fifth evidence session on the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome four witnesses, joining us here in person. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record, please, perhaps starting with David?

Thanks, David Rowlands, acting head of policy and public affairs at Tai Pawb.

I'm Gareth Lynn Montes, housing policy lead at the Welsh Refugee Council.

Debbie Thomas, head of policy and communications at Crisis in Wales.

Cerys Clark, policy and public affairs manager, CIH Cymru.

Okay, thank you all very much. Perhaps I might begin then with one or two initial questions. First of all, do you believe this Bill is needed, or could the aims be achieved without the proposed legislation? Who would like to offer us a view?

I can go first, if you like.

Yes, please, Debbie.

This one's a super easy question for me to answer. We really welcome this Bill. We think it could make an absolutely massive difference. We see, day in, day out, that the current legislation is not working, people are shut out of support. We've seen the ombudsman highlight that it's been misapplied as well, to great detriment to so many people. We've also seen front-line services really struggling as well with the rise of homelessness. We know that, if we don't act, that's going to rise even faster. Our recently published 'Homelessness Monitor' showed that, if we don't take any action at all, homelessness is going to rise by another 24 per cent by 2041, and we just cannot afford to let that happen. So, we see this legislation as highly reflective of the recommendations that were put forward by the expert review panel. Crisis convened that panel, but it was very much represented by people across the sector and had, at its heart, consultation with a wide range of people, including people with lived experience, and was very much based upon creating a package that would work for everyone across the sector and about looking at making sure it was based on the principles set out in the ending homelessness national action plan. So, from my point of view, this legislation takes all of that on board and presents a framework that we can work to, so that we can move prevention upstream, make sure everyone gets the support that they need, and prevent homelessness from escalating further. So, I absolutely feel that framework is needed to set that direction.

Okay, Debbie, thanks very much. Any of you like to add anything? Yes, Cerys.

For us, we welcome the Bill, and its focus on prevention. Homelessness is at its highest level since the current legislation began, but the new legislation alone cannot solve homelessness. We also need that adequate supply of cross-tenure affordable homes across Wales, and we also need to ensure that our workforce is at the right level to implement not only the current legislation, but any new legislation that comes up. During our engagement with our members, one local authority told us that their case officers have 100 cases each. That doesn't leave any room to do any prevention work, which is much needed. So, alongside any new homelessness legislation, which we welcome, there needs to be that increase of supply of homes, and ensuring our workforce is at the right level to implement it, and, obviously, have the support that they need to do the work, which is much valued and needed.

Okay, Cerys, thanks very much.

I don't mind going next, Gareth. Without echoing what's already been said, I suppose, from our perspective, we're really pleased with the change that's coming in. It's about creating, from our perspective, a more humane system around homelessness, and we think there's the potential to do this. The fact that there's a lot of lived experience input, and will continue to be lived experience input, is really positive in terms of capturing people's voices. So, we're pleased to see that overall. We're positive about the legislation.

Okay, David, thanks very much. And Gareth.

We welcome the legislation. I think it's very much needed. The data, the evidence, speaks for itself in the need for this legislation, and we think that it will achieve many of its aims in ending homelessness. So, I echo a lot of what was said before. I also echo the comments around capacity building, but also the one thing that we would like to highlight, and I think it's, sometimes, where the detail is, and we imagine a lot of that will come with guidance, about how this legislation can help certain groups, obviously including newly granted refugees, whom we are here to represent, but I imagine other groups, but, again, we're very hopeful, around guidance, how that could help.

Okay. Thanks very much. Is there anything in addition to what Cerys mentioned in terms of resources or other factors that need to be in place for this legislation to succeed in its aims, would you say, to make sure that it can be implemented effectively?

Yes, I'm happy to add on to that. I completely agree that it's really important that we resource this Bill, that we give people the training and the resources that they need to implement it effectively and make it work. I look back at that 'Ending Homelessness in Wales: A high level action plan 2021-2026', which has got a jigsaw puzzle on the front, and I very much see this as one part of that jigsaw puzzle, but a very critical part. Like I say, it sets the direction, it sets the framework and the guidelines that everyone works to. But, as Cerys mentioned, obviously, there are other critical parts, such as build and supply—really pleased to see that mentioned in the regulatory impact assessment as part of this Bill, because that is going to be really important.

I think in terms of other things that we need to think about when bringing this in it's the transitionary and phased-in approach. There are some really great things in this. Part of what makes us really positive about this are the things around abolishing priority need and intentionality, which I know we'll come on to in a bit, but making sure that that's phased in appropriately with the other measures that come along with it. So, it would not make sense, for example, to bring in deliberate manipulation before you've abolished intentionality, and likewise with the changes to the relief duty as well and priority need. So, making sure that we get that transition right and also not pushing that transition too long, because, as much as we do need to get guidance in place and we need resourcing in place, the longer we hold off putting this Bill in place, the more homelessness is going to continue to escalate. So, we feel that being clear on a transitionary approach and making sure that we can bring it in as soon as possible, and seeing it as a way—. It's not just about what resources you need to put in, it's about what resources you're going to save, because costs are just going to escalate if we don't act now.

Would anybody like to add anything?

I think it's about looking at the HSG allocations as well. When we've spoken to local authorities, at the moment, that's based on the population of a local authority, not the need. So, if you're a small local authority with a high level of need, that level of allocation may not be sufficient, and a lot of the proposals in the Bill rely on that support either to prevent homelessness happening in the first place or retaining somebody's home when they are helped and provided with a new home, so that also needs to be in the mix as well. So, as well as that funding for the statutory workforce, we also need to make sure that our allocation of the housing support grant is appropriate and based on the need of a local authority, rather than just the population within that local authority.

I'd agree with everything that all my colleagues here have said, I suppose. Taking a step back as well, we are experiencing a housing crisis more broadly; homelessness is just one factor of that. So, we're not just going to resolve the housing crisis that we're experiencing by putting in new homeless legislation, talking about resources, staffing, HSG. We need to work out how we can have a more strategic approach to housing in Wales and return to it being a fundamental mission of Government. I think, for us at Tai Pawb, that's crucial.

Yes, sure. Okay, David, thanks for that. There's always a sort of overall picture, isn't there, and then component parts of that in terms of taking it forward. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, John. Good afternoon, everyone. It's very apparent in a couple of the papers that you've submitted that you do absolutely agree with the removal of the priority need, particularly you, Debbie; I think you've highlighted the work that you've done as Crisis in relation to this. So, if there's anybody who's got any differing views, I'd be particularly keen to hear those, but also what you think about timelines for the introduction of removing the priority need; we know there's only a handful of local authorities now that actually use it.

Who would like to begin?

I don't think there's much opposition to removing priority need. A lot of local authorities are already working to priority-need-neutral positions, because of the changes that have stayed in the system post pandemic. So, I think a lot of local authorities are already working to that position. The change comes when it's the intentionality; local authorities are less supportive of removing that intentionality test, so that would be where the difference would lie. And the vast majority of our local authority members and local authorities we've spoken to have said that, yes, it's fine to remove priority need, but you need to be keeping that intentionality test. There is that right to housing, and nobody is disagreeing with that, but that right has to come with the responsibility that comes to everybody who has their own home. So, that is something that local authorities are very much clear on—that they do want that test to remain within the legislation.

If I could jump in there and add something, we've always looked at these changes around priority need, intentionality and unreasonable failure to co-operate as part of a package and part of a discussion that's been taking place through the legislative process, where people have given and taken and they've been supporting each other. So, in that sense, I suppose, in terms of looking at all of those changes, we're relatively positive about the need for those changes in the legislation, the proposals that have been put forward. I think the one caveat that we would have with that is around the guidance that follows and how we protect people with protected characteristics, who we know have been discriminated against and have been victims of unconscious bias in our housing systems in the past. I think there's a need, really, to recognise that data needs to be kept where these kinds of mechanisms are used so that it's not affecting adversely some communities more than others.

Yes, if I may add on to that last point, obviously we support at the Welsh Refugee Council a cohort of people who sometimes have barriers to accessing information, be they language ones or just knowledge of that thing. As I always say, if any of us here in the room were to go to a brand-new country, we'd probably struggle to understand some of the rules and some of the ways that the language is used. So, it's echoing that point that David just made about how the guidance is then put in place, where some of these, previously with intentionality, or anything that comes to substitute it—. How that's not then used to exclude people who've not been able to understand that information. Yes, we agree that there should be an onus on the individual accessing the support to take steps to understand that information, seek advice and stuff like that, but, sometimes, there are no networks to support them in these things, and no support services in place cater to them. So, it's around, ‘Is that information being given to them in a way that they understand and can they then make an informed decision about it?’

Yes, okay.

Can I come in as well? You're absolutely right, Lesley: we feel very, very strongly about getting rid of priority need. It doesn't do what it says on the tin. I think a lot of people think it's about prioritising need and it's absolutely not; it's a binary approach, it's a shut door, it's a ‘you're in' or 'you're out’ based on who you are, and that is so damaging to people. We see so many single males who just cannot get the support they need because of who they are and not fitting into a category, so it’s absolutely important that it goes.

It underlines the fact of having a trauma-informed system, and, as I said at the start, and, as Cerys has said, a lot of people are already working without priority need, so we would really feel that it needs to come in as soon as possible as part of bringing in a trauma-informed approach. I’m a bit anxious about the five, six years that have been outlined, because, actually, the sooner you bring it in, the sooner you help. If you were to bring it in now, you would save 5,500 people from experiencing the trauma of homelessness by 2040. That's huge, so let's bring it in.

With intentionality, I'm afraid I completely disagree with the points raised around keeping it in. As Dave pointed out, the discussions at a panel level were very much looking at a package, and red lines from the third sector and from others as well were drawn around making sure we got rid of priority need and intentionality, because without doing that you will never have a trauma-informed system. Intentionality, let's be clear, is incredibly punitive. The moment you label someone as intentionally homeless, not only are you doing emotional damage and distancing them from the authorities, because no-one is intentionally homeless and no-one wants to be without a home, but you're actually locking them out of the system completely and making it really difficult for them to ever get in again, and you will never end homelessness that way.

So, intentionality is very punitive and often misapplied. Actually, only 90 people was it applied to, but the effects are huge, so, again, I feel it needs to be brought in, and it needs to be brought in soon. Colleagues referred to the deliberate manipulation clause that is going to replace it. We'd rather have no clause in at all, but we appreciate having something in to replace it from local authorities’ point of view. For us, that's much less punitive, because it's applied at the social housing stage, as opposed to whole-scale locking out of support. We will want to make sure that that's working effectively, and that doesn't unnecessarily block flow through. So, in our written evidence, we'll be putting more information about that, and making sure the wording works, making sure it works for everyone, and that's monitored to make sure that it's not misapplied, because, let's face it, there's only going to be a very small number of people who are going to try and deliberately manipulate the system to make themselves homeless. No-one wants to be homeless.

Okay. Lesley.

Thanks very much. Can I just pick up—? I think it was David who talked about lack of data, and we've heard that from other witnesses today. You were saying how important it would be that the guidance was correct and that you had the data. Is this an issue that you've been talking to people about before, about this lack of data, because it's come up a few times today?

I suppose the best way to frame the answer to that is that Tai Pawb undertook research earlier on in the process to capture the voices of people with lived experience of homelessness who had protected characteristics. One of the challenges that came from that is there were lots of different patterns that came out in terms of people's experiences, but the one thing that was similar across all of them was that there were barriers in place to stop people getting the solutions they needed and there wasn't flexibility in the system. Sometimes, decisions were made based around bias or misinformation, whether conscious or unconscious, and that meant that people had worse outcomes in the system. We would see that having better data in this area is a way to effectively monitor and evaluate this, and then look and see if decisions then needed to be made to reverse things. Without that, there's a real risk that what remains in terms of the tests in place could favour some communities more so than other communities.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Debbie mentioned the new powers around deliberate manipulation. Does anybody have any differing views, or do you tend to agree with what Debbie was saying around it? Is it a bit of a compromise, would you say?

The local authorities that we have spoken to said that that doesn't provide a suitable alternative. So, some of the examples that we put on the White Paper where intentionality should still be applied is when there is extensive criminal behaviour resulting in a police closure order, the applicant was a joint contract holder and has been removed because of their behaviour, and that makes them unsuitable to be a tenant, and the applicant has caused significant damage to the property, and, with that, it's the applicant that has caused the damage. So, if there is abuse in the property and it's clear that the perpetrator has caused that damage, the applicant shouldn't be held accountable for that. But those behaviours wouldn't necessarily be deliberate manipulation of the system, or they wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable failure to co-operate; they are very much behaviour that somebody is engaging in that is causing an issue to the wider community or people that they are living with.

So, for us, yes, we need to maintain the test, but it is in very specific circumstances, and we're making it clear in our evidence as well that, if it is a family, the children aren't penalised as a result of that. So, for the first time a family apply as homeless, the intentionality test isn't applied, but there is that mandated referral through to social services to say, 'Actually, this family's become homeless, there are some issues at home. Can we have a look and safeguard the children as well?' But, for us, it's very much that those circumstances wouldn't necessarily be someone trying to manipulate the system; they are very real behaviours that cause a risk to other people within the community that need to be looked at. And it goes back to those rights and responsibilities, that, 'You've got a right to a home, no-one's denying that, but that comes with that responsibility to behave in a certain way while you're living in that home as well.'

If I can come in there and highlight that a lot of those examples would be dealt with in other areas of legislation, in particular, there's failure to co-operate, there's criminal law, and to come back to the punitive nature of intentionality, like shutting people out of any support whatsoever. To me, it makes far more sense to provide that kind of alternative as a stick, if you will, for people who might manipulate the system, which doesn't lock people out of the system, so you don't end up with people rough-sleeping because they literally cannot go anywhere else. And let's also be clear about how widely misused intentionality has been. I could rattle off so many examples of people who have been found intentionally homeless for mad reasons, really. I’ve seen people who’ve been told they’re intentionally homeless because they didn’t stay living with someone who was their husband who had been accused of child abuse, and they didn’t want to stay in that home. They were told that they were intentionally homeless. We’ve seen people who have been told that they’re intentionally homeless because they will not stay in their rented properties until the bailiffs arrive, because of the emotional damage and trauma that that causes. We’re looking at a system where intentionality has been misapplied with huge consequences. And shifting that over to another test that's not going to lock people out of the system, but still provides a stick so that people don't try and manipulate the system for social housing—and we are talking about a small number there—is key. And I think, coming back to some of the points about criminal damage, there's criminal law to deal with that, and that really brings us on to failure to co-operate, really, which, again, let's be clear, is highly punitive. The moment you are found failing to co-operate, that's the door shut. You can't get support. If you've got local connection in place, where else are you going to go? Where do you turn? It's a huge deal for people.

And we heard, on the panel, evidence, again, of that being misapplied—people being told they were failing to co-operate because they missed one appointment. The reason they missed that appointment was because it clashed with a probation appointment that they absolutely had to attend. We've heard of other people failing to co-operate because they didn't respond to communication. The communication didn't meet their comms needs. So, we're really pleased to see the failure to co-operate test being narrowed, and being clear about repeated communication needed, because we know that's a real issue. But we are quite worried about the introduction of property damage within that. That can be open to abuse. Even the language within the Bill is criminal law speak, and it is dealt with under criminal law, and if that's misapplied or interpreted wrongly, not taken in a trauma-informed approach, or even applied to people, as it says in the Bill, who reside with someone who damaged a property, potentially that's someone who's living with someone who's abusive, who's then locked out of the system for failing to co-operate because the person they were living with abused a property.

Can I come in, Chair?

Yes, sure.

Just to explore that further, just to test the arguments a little bit, Debbie, because, under the scenario you paint, if you think that somebody who is damaging their property should only be dealt with under criminal law, with no housing consequence for that, to take an extreme example, of somebody who is behaving badly consistently, you're saying they still should have an obligation to be housed, even though they may have a pattern of behaviour that is destructive to their neighbours and to the community.

Not necessarily. I'm saying, 'What would we do if someone was abusive in the health system?' We would deal with it. We would take them out of that situation. We would make sure that things were safe. But we wouldn't block their access to health because it's a fundamental right, in the same way that your need for housing is a fundamental right. So, what I'm saying is we've seen other aspects of the law being totally misapplied. The stick with failure to co-operate is huge. It's blocking you out of the system completely. So, there's the potential, with that in the Bill, that that could be misapplied. It could potentially not be trauma informed, because that's what we've seen in the past, and understanding what's causing people to—. What is the level of that damage that you're going to apply that at? What is causing people to do that damage? What's the root cause of that? And I think that needs real careful work.

I understand that, and I'm very sympathetic to that point. But I’m just thinking—because the whole point of scrutiny is to test arguments, and we heard the evidence earlier, and I'm persuaded by it—in terms of what you're saying now, I think of casework I've had where somebody in a block of flats is abusing drugs, is being a very bad neighbour, and there are vulnerable old people in neighbouring flats having a terrible time, life being made hell. I take your point that denying them access to housing is extreme, but surely there would be circumstances when, yes, they have rights, but they also have responsibilities, and other people have rights too, and when the two are in conflict, should that not be a tool in the toolbox?

I just think this is the wrong tool in the toolbox. Of course you don't want people kicking off and damaging that community and the neighbours around them, but this tool is kicking them out of all support. So, where are they going to go and what are they going to do? And that's why I feel concerned that property damage isn't failure to co-operate, and I think it needs careful looking at, careful consideration. Again, to emphasise something that Dave said, which I believe was in relation to failure to co-operate around equality groups, which is that there's a lot of research about bias, really, and how this is applied to ethnic minority groups as well. It's just an area—. I understand the point you're making, but this is the wrong tool, and it's going to shut people out.

Sure. Cerys, you'd have a different view.

Yes, we would. Local authorities are concerned about that very situation. So, what happens if someone keeps losing their home or keeps losing their interim accommodation, even with all that support in place? We heard of examples where people were provided with all that support—they were provided with wraparound support, there were things in place, they were helped with substance misuse rehabilitation and mental health help, but their behaviour still resulted in them losing another property, or losing interim accommodation. So, what happens to those individuals who keep burning through temporary accommodation placements, causing trauma to everybody else living in that temporary accommodation, and causing them issues that could result in them having worse mental health? So, for local authorities, it's seen as a safeguard. Actually, this is time for the rest of the public sector to step up. This isn't just a housing issue; this is an issue for the wider public sector. Sometimes, somebody's housing problem isn't just the fact they haven't got a roof over their head; it's the fact that they need support that health should be providing, or that somebody else should be providing, that housing just isn't able to provide. We're housing, we provide you with a home, but that support needs to come alongside.

Sometimes, yes, there are people who have been failed by whatever system—be it us, be it housing or health, but that needs to be in place as well. I think that's a recognition of getting to a point where that behaviour is so severe, and the trauma it's causing other people is so severe, that the rest of the public sector also needs to step up and help.

But what about the parallel with health, where that same test isn't applied to deny someone the right to be treated in hospital?

They have a right to emergency treatment but, again, actually, if you've only got five temporary accommodation placements in the local authority area, and you've gone through each individual one, caused trauma to other residents at each of those placements and then you've fallen out the other end, should we then be giving them another go? It's about the local authority saying, 'There is nowhere else for us to help them.'

So, it's trauma informed to a point?

It is always trauma informed, but, in one of our sector snapshots, one of our respondents very clearly said, 'Everybody else can walk away, housing can't'. So, what happens when housing's left holding somebody where the risk is too great for us to be able to help? That is when health needs to come in.

If I could come in there, Cerys, I have sympathy for that argument, but I think, at the same time, we need to understand that if we are to move in a trauma-informed direction—which all the policy, all the guidance says we're doing—then this legislation is about catching up to that so that the systems are in place. The saying is that there's an exception to every rule, isn't there? There'll always be cases where individuals will behave badly, but, actually, there'll be a lot of people that will fall through nets as well. I think, probably, the extreme examples are not always necessarily reflective of everyone, so it would be quite a blunt tool to have in place.

And that's why we've been quite clear about when it needs to be applied. Those three examples are extremes; they're not the norm. In my practice, I think I dealt with two closure orders in the 10 years I was working as a homelessness front-line officer. That's how rare that is. So, it's not something that's going to happen every day; it's something that is extreme behaviour, but it's about going back to those rights and responsibilities.

Debbie's evidence is that it can be misused. That's the problem. It should be applied to extreme behaviour, but there are other times when that is drawn upon too easily as a tool.

But sometimes, that comes back to rationing. There aren't enough resources. So, you've got legislation, and whether it's conscious or not conscious—and I'm not naïve enough to say that gatekeeping doesn't happen—there isn't enough resource you. I go back to the 100 cases. Well, I've got 100 cases and I've got a 37-hour working week. How on earth are you meant to deal with all that information coming at you? Sometimes, yes, a decision may not be made correctly, but when you're dealing with 100 people every week, that's hard.

But doesn't that go to reinforce Debbie's point, that if gatekeeping is happening—and it's entirely understandable if it is—if it's easier for someone to kick somebody out rather than getting a multidisciplinary approach to dealing with their trauma, they're more likely just to kick them out, aren't they?

But the solution should be increasing our workforce, so I think that's the solution to it. So, we shouldn't have cases where a housing officer has 100 people that they're working with, to try and do that trauma-informed work and work with them to secure a home. We need more resource in our workforce, so that you've got 20 cases each, which is a manageable amount, I would have said, per week, to deal with.

Okay. I think we'd better move on, because we have a limited amount of time, as ever. In terms of local connection, it's proposed by Welsh Government, through this legislation, to retain local connection and add a new local connection to Wales test. Are you supportive of those measures, or do you have concerns?

I'm happy to go first. I mean, I'm going to make no secrets about it: Crisis doesn't like local connection, we never have done, we see, day in, day out, the damage it does to people. People are often escaping things, they present at a different local authority for a reason, and often would sleep rough rather than go back to the local authority where they have the connection, because of what they're escaping from. So, we see it does present significant barriers. We really would have wanted to see it removed totally. However, coming back to the fact that this Bill is rooted in those discussions, as part of the panel, as part of a wide range of bodies, and taking on board everyone's viewpoint, it's kind of understood that this is a give to local authorities in order to move forward with getting rid of priority need and intentionality.

What the panel recommended was extending the list of exemptions, so that we could extend that exemption to groups that we know are particularly vulnerable to this test. We were disappointed to see that those exemptions haven't made it through to the Bill. However, the silver lining is having that tool for the future, to enable Welsh Government to add to the list of exemptions for the future. What we would want to see, because we know that this can cause such a barrier, is a real close monitoring of this particular test, as part of the review of the Bill, to consider how those powers can be used in the future, so that we can potentially look to extend that list of exemptions, and also looking really carefully at special circumstances as well, to make sure that that's clearer and covers people who are really escaping difficult situations.

We welcome the extension and the reflection of the definition of abuse, which will really help people in terms of local connection as well, when they're fleeing abusive situations, which is great, because that is something that we see a lot, and people really suffer with that. But the one point I did want to put across in terms of local connection is that I'm a bit confused about bringing in the Wales connection. But the main thing for us, really, in doing that, is making sure that, while people are being referred, they're able to access interim accommodation, so they're not left on the street. So, we're really keen to see that in the Bill, which is in the Bill, and want to make sure that's effectively implemented.

There is one group, and it is very rare, but it does happen, where you do come across people who have no local connection to anywhere, and I think that it would be really important to look at making sure that that small group is covered, because they would be left with nothing otherwise. So, that's one thing we're really keen to see.

Thanks for that. Debbie, could I just ask as well, one option would be, rather than to extend the categories of exemption through the regulation-making powers, to include those categories on the face of the Bill, and then if it became apparent that there was unacceptable impact on local authorities through any of those exemptions, to then remove them at that stage? So, it would sort of turn on its head what's proposed, really. Is that something you think would be preferable?

Yes. Yes, we'd welcome that. If others were willing to support that to go through, I think that would be a really positive approach. Because we did hear so much evidence at panel. I mean, we see it every day in our Crisis Skylight, but so much evidence at panel about different groups—you know, people from LGBTQ communities who are fleeing abuse, prisoners who just need a fresh start in order to stop that cycle of re-offending, all sorts of groups. So, yes, that sounds really positive to me.

If I can—. Go on, I'll jump in, Gareth.

All right.

I suppose one thing that jumped out at me was that in the previous iterations of the legislation, when we had the White Paper and expert review panel, there were more groups identified under this list, as you and Debbie have referred to. One of the challenges of this is that we know some of those groups were the people who were more at risk of homelessness. One in four young LGBTQ people experience homelessness. And I think the challenge is, without having those groups listed and protected as such, then you end up with a pattern where people who are more at risk of experiencing homelessness don't get the best benefits out of the updated and informed legislation.

Right. Okay.

If I can add on that, at the Welsh Refugee Council, local connection was one of the areas we felt quite strongly about. We understand that sometimes local connection is used as essentially a rationing tool, but also that local authorities are under a lot of pressure, and we believed that special circumstances, exemptions to local connection, were very much the middle ground or were an acceptable middle ground.

Obviously, both Debbie and Dave have spoken about those groups that fall within that. Obviously, as the Welsh Refugee Council, we're here to champion the rights of sanctuary seekers and specifically newly granted refugees, who we believe are one of the groups that should fall under local connection. Because before gaining the status that says that they've got a right to remain in the UK, before that, it's the Home Office who are housing them, and that's at the Home Office's discretion, where these people are being housed, and we have seen cases of people being moved to one area, and then they've built a life there, and then they're moved to another area, and two weeks later they're granted status, and that new area is where they've got status, which is somewhere they've only been for a couple of weeks. So, that means that there's very little flexibility for them to actually choose where they live, and that can be places where there are no community groups, no networks, no place of worship, no Halal butchers, if that's something that they need. So, it's a group that we believe very passionately about.

One other thing that I wanted to highlight at this point, and it's to echo what David said, is that a lot of the groups that are filing these special circumstances are groups that are at heightened risk of becoming homeless anyway, and sometimes we don't have the data to actually show that. For example, at the moment, according to the guidance that local authorities have in terms of collecting data on homelessness, they're not collecting data on someone who has left Home Office accommodation and has then presented as homeless.

We've got some data, which, again, is just based on our casework data, so it's not going to include everyone in Wales and it's just very specific to our Cardiff office, but just to give you an indication, in the last four months—and this is a period when the Home Office has extended its move-on period, so that's the period where people have to leave their Home Office accommodation and then get a job, employment and all that kind of stuff—in those last four months, for the people we do have data for, we've got that 68 per cent of them are living in temporary accommodation from the local authority, and an additional 9 per cent are either sofa surfing or rough-sleeping. So, that's a group that very much is at a heightened risk of becoming homeless, which we don't have wider data for, but that indicative data shows that they are a group that are at risk of becoming homeless. And without specific measures—and, you know, local connection may be one of those areas—they will be at an increased risk.

Okay. Thanks for that. We've got quite a lot left to cover, I'm afraid, so we'll have to probably have shorter answers, if that's okay. Lee Waters.

So, I'll ask a question, and we'll group it if it's okay with you. I want to ask about how different groups are treated in the Bill, particularly those with protected characteristics, survivors of domestic violence, care leavers and those leaving prison. If you have any comments where you think the Bill falls short, that would be useful.

We welcome the changes for care leavers. I think that needs to be put on record. That is a really good system of providing that mini system for care leavers, but it's just making sure that that work starts when that care leaver is 16 rather than at 18 when they are leaving care, to give that time to make sure that any support needs are addressed, that they can access that support and that they're ready for independent living when they hit 18, be that with or without support. So, that's just something that we would like to see in there, just that that work starts at 16 rather than when they are actually ready to leave care.

I suppose, I would talk about it in terms of positives, that it's really good to see the accessible housing register guidance included in the legislation. Our written submission has lots of recommendations there, so we'd urge guidance to consider those, so that they can adopt best practice principles.

I suppose, more broadly around protected characteristics, some of the challenges that we'd see would be around some of the provision for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers that was in earlier iterations of the legislation that isn't there. I know this committee is well versed in some of those challenges. In the conversations I've had recently with colleagues at Gypsies and Travellers Wales, they told me about a family who've been victims of hate crime in their community. They've had swastikas daubed on their fence. They've had their windows put in by bricks with messages on them. So, they've been forced into temporary accommodation, and that temporary accommodation is unsuitable for them. So, some of the things that we'd talked about previously was having the option for site-based accommodation to be made available within the legislation. I understand there might be something to follow around guidance with that. But I think the danger is that if we don't have some of these provisions spelt out in the legislation, then the groups that are already more vulnerable and already at risk will suffer the most.

And I think you heard it from Professor Fitzpatrick this morning, that we're not all at equal risk of homelessness. So, we know some people, based on their experiences in their life, are characteristically more at risk, so if we do want to end homelessness, we need to think about how we're ending it for all groups. Otherwise, there's a real risk of homelessness stigmatising certain groups further, and also community disorder as a result of that, which obviously we're all concerned about in the current climate.

I would add to the positives as well that there's so much positive in here for protected characteristic groups, particularly the person-centred approach, the PSAP, the noting down of people's communication needs. There are huge accessible housing registers that make a massive difference. There's lots of really good stuff in there.

From a prisoner point of view, we do see prisoners are at such high risk of homelessness, and so the stuff in there to support prisoners in terms of making sure that they have advice and support is so valuable. There are a few things that we would really want, and I know the Welsh Government does have the post-custody accommodation group, which is really good, to take forward that guidance. That guidance is going to be critical, and guidance is my key word throughout all of this. There are things that we will want to clarify around how do you determine six months, that a prisoner is likely to leave within six months, because obviously that can change. So, there will be the need for guidance to make sure it works effectively, but there is a lot of positivity within there.

Gareth, do you—?

No, nothing to add to what's been said.

No. Does anybody have any comments on survivors of domestic violence?

I think it's just welcome that the definition has been expanded, and it's very clear with the local connection rules, that they are exempt from that. So, just that wider—. It gives people more opportunity to find somewhere where they are safe and can start again.

So, you're content with what's in the Bill?

Yes, very content with what's in the Bill around that.

And there's nobody dissenting from that?

No, although I wouldn't dissent from that, probably one thing worth raising is that there are circumstances where it's preferable for the victim to remain within the home, and that may mean the perpetrator being removed from the home and needing to be supported within some kind of systems around homelessness. Obviously, that can be unpalatable, but at the same time, if that's what keeps the victim safer by them being protected, then that's important to consider. In circumstances where that happens, it's important that other vulnerable people are considered in where the person's placed.

Okay, Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much, Lee. Siân Gwenllian.

Good afternoon. The Bill does give a broader range of accommodation options for local authorities to discharge the main housing duty. How important is that? Could there be any unintended consequences as a result?

I can go first, if you like. This came up as part of the panel work and part of the calls to ensure that flow is increased through the system. From Crisis's point of view, we were keen to see that there was a package of safeguards that come along with that, to make sure that people aren't pressurised into alternative accommodation that wouldn't meet their needs. There are a lot of safeguards in the Bill. We really welcome the veto. We really welcome that people are going to be informed of what it means, that they're going to be checked in on after six months, which would enable them to then go back through the system if they are at risk as well. So, there are a lot of safeguards that we welcome.

However, we do feel what would tie it all together and would really help is having independent advice. An offer of independent advice, and having it on the face of the Bill, would be really helpful to make sure that that person makes that decision fully informed, and, from the local authority perspective as well, that they're covered and case law doesn't to and fro.

Again, we welcome the wider range of accommodation options, but concerns have been raised by some of our local authority members around the increase in timescales for reviewing the suitability of that accommodation. Six months is a very long time. So, we just want to make sure, in any guidance that's issued, where that suitability is applied. So, is that suitability on the day that they moved in, or is it five months later, because their circumstances have changed, which was completely unforeseen—does that then mean that that would trigger a review of suitability? So, just some clarity around when that review would kick in, because that six months is a very long period of time.

Okay. Thank you. Siân.

Yes, moving on to partnership work, this is key to the success, isn't it, of the Bill in question. How vital is it to expand the homelessness duties to other bodies? Do you think that the 'ask and act' duty is clear enough as to what are the expectations of the other bodies in terms of their duties?

Partnership working is absolutely key. We hear it loud and clear from everyone, from people with lived experience who say, 'Actually, I've been in touch with so many different authorities, and my homelessness could have been prevented if other authorities had had the power to step in and refer and act', and we hear it from housing professionals as well, who are like, 'Homelessness is not just a housing issue, we need support from wider organisations.' So, we're really, really positive about these wider public sector duties. We feel that what makes it really strong is having the additional co-operation duty. That's learning from England, because they didn't have that in England and adding that in makes a huge difference.

The organisations that are listed will make a huge difference. It's great to see probation on there; it's great to see lots of other bodies on there. There are a few bodies that are missing that we think could also make a big difference: the Home Office, police, education, primary care. However, we do understand that those negotiations take time. So, we do welcome that there's this futureproofing in the Bill so that those conversations can continue and that list can grow and develop.

I think that it's important to link partnership working—. Yes, the 'ask and act' duties are huge, massively welcomed, with loads of support everywhere for it, but it also links with other critical parts of the Bill as well. So, it links to making sure that you've got that preventative approach, it links to that duty to retain accommodation, which is absolutely vital. That's at the centre of the rapid-rehousing approach, making sure that people don't just circle through and through the system. And the partnership work to that is really important, as is this element on a case co-ordination approach as well. So, really positive about partnership working. Guidance will be really helpful, training will be really helpful, looking at expanding that list will be important, and similarly with the retaining accommodation duty, making sure that that's able to work effectively, and the same with the case co-ordination duty.

One thing I would say on the case co-ordination duty is that the explanatory memorandum talks about protocols being local, which I understand completely, because you've got different services in different local areas, but just to say that it would be helpful to have some level of central guidance as well to give some steer and some consistency to that.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, Siân?

Anybody else want to come in on that? I'm just not quite sure myself that 'ask and act', which is to ask somebody, 'Can we refer you to the homelessness services?' is enough to capture all of the preventative work that needs to be done. What are your views on that?

Yes, I think that asking their permission is key around the data protection rules, because quite often in my practice that has been a stumbling block, where a professional will see that there is a need, but, because they haven't had that explicit permission, the data protection regulations don't necessarily allow that referral with all of that additional information. So, I think that that's been put in there to try and overcome that stumbling block that is quite often there when you're trying to refer somebody—a health visitor trying to refer somebody in as well. And one key thing around that 'act and ask' is that the regulatory impact assessment says that that's due to come in a full 12 months after the expanded prevention duty. They need to come in at the same time. So, if that expanded prevention duty is going to come into place on 1 April 2027, that 'ask and act' has to come in on that day as well. So, if the whole point of this is to improve our awareness of people being at threat of homelessness and making that prevention work robust, that 'ask and act' and that expanded prevention duty have to come in at exactly the same time. But it's not about delaying that prevention duty, it's about bringing that 'ask and act' further forward and getting that in at an earlier point in time with the Act as well.

If I can add really quickly, because I know we're tight on time, I think there will need to be a degree of monitoring with the list that's available to see if there are certain communities of people who are coming less into contact with the listed bodies than others. Because if there's a pattern where the public services that people engage with are more likely to be listed, then they're more likely to get referred. If there are public services bodies that people aren't engaged with as much, then there's a chance that they won't get 'ask and act' and they won't have the system in place followed on. So, that's why we suggest monitoring and that data are kept on that.

Okay. Okay, David, thanks very much.

Chair, if I could just—

Yes.

Very, very quickly. Yes, for us, and I know Debbie already talked about it, but, yes, the Home Office is very much a key one. We know that there is provision to add public bodies in the future, but, at the moment, communication between the Home Office and other bodies, sometimes, is minimal. So, there will be cases where people are moved by Home Office dispersal to a local authority and that local authority only finds out that that person is there once they try and register their children at a school or try to access medical services. So, there's already a lack, or a vacuum, of communication, sometimes, between the Home Office and local authorities and other public bodies. So, I know that there are limitations around what is devolved and not devolved, but that is one that we would like to see added in the future.

I see. Okay. Thank you very much. Laura Anne Jones.

Diolch, Chair. Good afternoon. Lastly for you all: does the Bill strike the right balance, in your opinion, in its approach to social housing allocations?

If I can say, this is huge—that we need movement on social housing allocations. So, our recent research—and also research that echoed research done during the panel—shows that, in terms of social allocations, you've got some areas that have got fantastic practice—some great RSLs that are doing amazing things to allocate homes to homeless households. But what we're hearing from local authorities is that that's not consistent, and actually sometimes those conversations are just blocked. And it's really difficult, especially for local authorities that don't hold their own stock.

Our research also shows that one of the biggest things that we can do to unlock and reduce homelessness in Wales is to improve access to social housing. I can send on that research. It's really clear that's a massive thing that we can do to make a big difference. What we like about this power that's in there is that it has flex—it's there for local authorities to use as and when they need it, and it opens up those—. What we've seen in Scotland, who've got a very similar power, is that it opens up those conversations just by virtue of being there. So, I think that's really positive.

The other positives are that common housing registers will be really useful, and I understand that common allocation policies are going to be looked at in guidance, which will be really helpful as well. We're really pleased that there's an additional preference for care leavers. They're a particularly vulnerable group. This will really help them, so we're really happy to see that.

We were a bit disappointed that there had been an on/off power to give enhanced priority to people who were experiencing homelessness at times of need and that hasn't made it onto the Bill. I think some of the opposition was through lack of understanding that, actually, that was an on/off power and not something that was in place all the time. But what's there is really positive. The one thing that I would say is, on the ability for local authorities to outline who's eligible for the list, that does have some potential to go a bit wrong. So, we're really keen to make sure that if that—. Well, we'd rather it not be in there, particularly because we don't feel that this was something that was overly supported at consultation stage. But, if it does remain, then making sure that that works effectively is going to be really crucial to make sure that it doesn't unfairly discriminate against people, or jar with other parts of the Bill.

And I think for us, as well, it's about the balance that our housing providers have. Our members have been clear that the whole point of them allocating these homes is ensuring that we have sustainable communities where individuals can thrive, and we are working towards a cohesive community. So, sometimes, it may not be an unreasonable refusal; it may just be that, actually, this person's support needs mean that that property's probably not the best for them or the wider community. So, it's just about making sure that that is built in there as well, that consideration of community cohesion and sustainable communities in making those offers also needs to be considered as well.

Okay, Laura? Okay, thank you all very much for giving evidence to the committee this afternoon. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yes, we'll take a short break before the next panel of witnesses.

Okay, item 6, then, our sixth evidence session on the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I’m very pleased to welcome, joining us here in person, Helen Mary Jones, deputy chief executive of Voices From Care Cymru.

Prynhawn da.

Prynhawn da.

Bill Rowlands, head of service for End Youth Homelessness Cymru.

Prynhawn da.

Prynhawn da.

And joining us virtually, Phoebe White, policy and influencing manager for National Youth Advocacy Service Cymru, and Sharon Thomas, support and accommodation services manager for—. Is it GISDA? What does that acronym stand for, Sharon?

You've put me on the spot now. It means

homeless group for single youth in Arfon.

But now it's over Gwynedd.

Right, yes. Diolch yn fawr. Okay. Well, thank you all coming in virtually or physically to give evidence to committee today. Perhaps I might begin, then, with an initial question: your views on whether the Bill will help address the issues faced by young people with regard to the homelessness system. Who would like to begin? Helen Mary, we'll pick on you.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to give evidence. On the whole, Voices From Care Cymru welcome the legislation, but we do have some concerns, and those concerns centre, really, around the implementation gap, and some of the issues around how we can ensure that this legislation, when it's applied, is applied consistently, because what young people tell us is that that isn't the case now, in terms of all sorts of entitlements—and I'm speaking, obviously, from the perspective of care-experienced young people—that we have some really good practice around ensuring that care-experienced people don't end up homeless, and we have some terrible practice. Just last week, I was talking to an 18-year-old who'd been told on her eighteenth birthday to fetch up at the homelessness office, and her social worker didn't even go with her, and that is just outrageous.

And so without—. These issues shouldn't be treated emotively, Chair, but we are talking about children and young people here, and our concern is how will this legislation be implemented. As one young man said to me when I was discussing it with him yesterday, 'Who's going to get into trouble if they don't do it?' And I would like to have the opportunity a bit later on to expand a little bit more on some of those areas where we think perhaps the committee might want to recommend strengthening some of what Welsh Government's proposing, to try and push that implementation gap closed as much as we can.

Okay, Helen Mary. Thanks very much, and we look forward to hearing further on that later. Okay, any of our other witnesses want to add anything on that? Yes, Bill.

Yes, sure. Happy to go next, and, yes, thank you very much the opportunity represent the work of End Youth Homelessness Cymru and the views of the young people we're privileged to speak to across Wales. I think, to be fair, a lot of what Helen Mary has spoken about there in terms of implementation gap we certainly would echo. I think there are certainly things currently legislated for that aren't implemented, which is leading to huge problems in regard to young people and their access to things that they have rights to currently, so I think there's certainly stuff that hopefully we can pick up in more detail as we go on around how that implementation gap can, hopefully, be closed.

We ran a series of focus groups with young people back for the White Paper at the start of this process, and we ran a couple last week, just to touch base again. I'd actually reiterate what Helen Mary's just said there, in that the one unifying thing that can unify a group of young people—who you can't unify because they're not a homogenous group at all—the one thing you can say, for the young people we engage with, is there's just a complete lack of trust in the system.

So, I think, for us, as policy practitioners, there's a lot in there that I will get excited about, because I think there can be a lot of real positive change through this Bill, and I'm sure we'll talk about some of that later, which is really positive, and other areas where I think there probably still need to be some safeguards and more strengthening to really support young people. But I think, just as a kind of summary of those focus groups, both a couple of years ago and last week, there's just a real lack of trust from young people that, whatever really changes, things are going to get better. So, I think, just to start with that, there's an opportunity here, but we have to make sure that the opportunity with the legislation is followed through to actually and positively support young people across Wales.

Okay, Bill. Thanks very much. Would—? Yes, please.

Thank you, and thank you as well for the opportunity for NYAS to give evidence today. Overall, we are pleased to see the Bill. We're pleased with the commitments that have been made by the Welsh Government, particularly in regard to care leavers. NYAS predominantly works with care-experienced children, young people and care leavers, and, too often for our advocacy services, we see young people leaving the care system and experiencing or being at risk of homelessness. So, we are pleased to see the policy intentions from the Welsh Government.

Similar, though, to what Helen and Bill have said, we do have some concerns within the legislation, and there are areas that I'm sure we'll be able to get into where we feel that the legislation may need strengthening or further clarity given to make sure that, in practice, we are really working to end homelessness as a route out of care for care leavers. In particular, as well, for all children and young people that are going to be impacted by this Bill, we think it's really important to make sure that there is really clear communication for the children and young people so they know what the changes are, what their new rights are, and, as well, for workforces working with young people, to make sure they are informed as well of what the changes to the housing and homelessness system are going to be so we can best support them.

Okay. Thanks very much, Phoebe. Sharon, did you want to say anything?

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I've got the same—. We welcome this Bill and, again, the responsibility has to be clear. They have to define—. I've done this in Welsh. Can I do it in Welsh? Is that okay? I've done my notes in Welsh.

We support this fully. Unfortunately, the reality currently is that people have to present as being homeless in order to have access to accommodation. This can cause further trauma, stigma and being placed in accommodation that is unsuitable. Responsibilities must be clear, and suitable accommodation must be defined with input from young people. This has to mean more than accommodation; it has to be safe, stable, affordable and in a place with a family link and a link with communities and services. It also has to include the need for supported accommodation, where needed.

Diolch yn fawr, Sharon. Okay, the Bill then, according to the Welsh Government, aims to ensure that no young person leaving care has to present as homeless to access suitable accommodation, which I think we'd all, certainly, like to see come about. But can we be confident, do you think, that the Bill will achieve that aim?

I think the challenge is in what the intention of the Bill sets out in terms of enshrining better co-operation between social services and housing. The challenge there is that the intention, as far as we can see, is there won't be a set national protocol and there won't be a set national set of expectations around that level of communication. In our view, it would be wise for the Welsh Government to look at what best practice there is, and there is some very good practice around co-operation between social services departments and housing, and ensuring that that best practice is mandated, because, as Bill said earlier, there is a lot of positive legislation that's on the statute book now that is not being implemented or is not being implemented consistently in this space. I suppose, from the point of view of our young people, and that lack of trust that Bill's referred to, they are looking to the Welsh Government and they are looking to our national politicians to take action on their behalf, because some of them are still being failed. And so, I think one of the issues that we would like the committee to consider is whether the Welsh Government should produce a national template for that protocol for communication. And this really shouldn't be very difficult to do, Chair. Every local authority knows how many looked-after children they are looking after, and every local authority knows when those young people are going to get to the point when they may need to live independently. And so, really, there isn't—you know, we're talking about 7,000 young people in total here—a reason why this isn't being done. And we think a national protocol would be helpful.

This is a real step—it is a step in the right direction, I don't want to be negative. I mean, the very fact that the legislation recognises the vulnerability of young people leaving care is really positive and it does send that signal to, perhaps, help rebuild some of that trust. But unless those protocols are established nationally and that there is some mechanism, perhaps through the inspectorates, to ensure that those protocols are actually operated on and that young people themselves are consulted as part of the process of inspecting those services, we risk being still in the situation where some local authorities are choosing to do really, really well in this space and others, for whatever reason, are not. In our experience, it isn't always, as you might expect, the local authorities who are more pushed with resources who find it harder to do, it isn't the local authorities who have small numbers of care-experienced children and perhaps don't have the expertise, it isn't necessarily the big authorities that have lots and lots of children. You can't see those patterns as to why it works in some places and doesn't work in others. And we think that, when it comes to ensuring that that co-operation happens and that we don't have children told to fetch up at the homelessness office on their eighteenth birthday anymore, the Welsh Government's got to be clearer with local authorities about what's expected, and that has to be inspected and there have to be consequences if it's not delivered.

Okay. Thanks very much for that. Would any of our other witnesses like to add anything to that? Bill.

Yes, I'll follow again, if that's okay. Again, maybe unsurprisingly, I would echo a fair amount if not everything that Helen Mary's just said. I think there's a lot in there that is really positive, and, again, I think it's important to put on record that we are really pleased to see such a focus on care leavers. Our research back in 2019 highlighted the propensity of care leavers to homelessness. If you look back at research done in the 1980s, that link has been there since research really began on this as an issue. So, it's, obviously, really disheartening that it still exists, but it's really positive to see that the Welsh Government have decided to focus on this and have taken the Bill further than the initial proposals in the White Paper. So, that is a real positive, and there's a lot in there that is really pleasing. But I think what we've got now is such an opportunity to make a difference. This is where opportunities like this to really scrutinise it will hopefully get it from what could be, maybe, a six or seven out of 10 to a real eight, nine or 10 out of 10 to make sure that we're actually fulfilling that corporate parenting duty to young people across Wales. I think there's a lot of work going on in that space that really lines up currently with where this is going from a homelessness point of view. As Helen Mary said, it's 7,000 young people; it's not a huge amount in terms of numbers, but we really need to be making sure that, as a state, or as a society, we're really providing the best for those groups of young people.

I think, on the joint protocol, there really needs to be leadership on that from the Welsh Government—and I'll try not to just repeat what Helen Mary said, to make sure that we're not running out of time—but I think there are examples already happening, for example, in Carmarthenshire, where there's a joint team already established with joint working protocols from social workers, housing options advisers and youth homeless co-ordinators. So, there are ready-made examples of where it's working really well in Wales already, and that's because the culture is in place and they've decided to have a go at it, and the results have been fantastic. The Welsh Government have viewed this as a piece of best practice already, so it would be really pleasing to see the Welsh Government take more leadership on that protocol and really dictate what they want from local authorities to make sure that it's not a continuation of where the good local authorities continue to do stuff positively and where, maybe, there are issues in some local authorities and that those issues continue regardless of the legislation.

Okay, Bill. And, yes, Phoebe.

Thank you. I completely agree with what has just been said by Helen and Bill. I think another important point to this that we have noticed throughout the Bill is the fact that the provisions that are in there for care leavers are only going up until the age of 21, or 25 if the care leaver is in education or training. We know, from our services, that the risk of homelessness does not stop for a care leaver when they turn 21 years old, and there is still that gap between 21 and 25 where they are less likely to get the same support services as when they were under 21 years old, and that risk of homelessness is still there. So, for us, it’s around what the can Bill do, what the guidance can do to ensure that care leavers, after they turn 21 years old, can still access support to make sure they are not experiencing homelessness after that initial cliff edge.

Okay, Phoebe. Thank you. Sharon.

Good afternoon. I think—. Oh, sorry—Sharon or Siân? [Laughter.]

Yes, sorry. Sharon.

Yes, I agree with everything that everyone’s said. We support care leavers, and we’ve found the same troubles as everyone else. So, we need transparency and that responsibilities are clear. And, like everyone else said, really, is what I've got.

Okay, Sharon. Before I bring in Siân Gwenllian, who is very eager—and rightly so—to ask some questions, just on the reasonable steps duty on local authorities to secure accommodation for young people leaving care, do you think it's clear from the wording of the Bill what that reasonable steps duty would mean in practice? And is it strong enough language, or might the language mirror the main rehousing duty?

I think it all comes down to definitions and consistency, doesn’t it, and what does 'reasonable' mean in this context. I wouldn’t be advocating for a complex definition of what 'reasonable' means in this context necessarily on the face of the Bill. But it needs to be clear in guidance. What are reasonable steps to stay in touch with a young person leaving care? And on the expectations around young people who may not have a current steady address, who may be moving from one friend’s house to another, what are the reasonable steps, what is it reasonable to expect? I suppose we would advocate that what is reasonable in this context should be what a good parent would do to look after their 18-year-old if their 18-year-old was leaving home. And when you frame the discourse in that way, then suddenly you start seeing this person as a child—which is what they are—who needs to be taken care of, who we as a state have decided we are going to take away from its parents because we think we can look after them better. So, I think what we would be looking for is clear definitions about what 'reasonable' means in this context. It’s a legal term—it gets used a lot in legislation, of course it does. But what is 'reasonable' in this context, and who is going to decide what’s reasonable and what isn’t in this space?

Again, it’s really positive to see the legislation acknowledging the vulnerability of young people leaving care, and highlighting that, but we’ve got to be clear about who decides what’s reasonable, and what might be reasonable in terms of contacting an adult with a secure address, who perhaps knows that their landlord is going to be selling the property and they need to move out. What might be reasonable in terms of dealing with that person might be very different from a teenager who may not have a steady home, who doesn’t have parents in their corner, and who may be sleeping on different friends' floors and couches from one night to another.

Yes. Okay. Anything to add from our other witnesses, please?

Just quickly from me, again, it's very similar. I think, yes, I struggled to really understand what 'reasonable' meant within the Bill, and what it is really looking to dictate to local authorities, and what, actually, the process was for following reasonable steps.

And just on that, in regard to the communication and ensuring that constant communication of checking in with young people, I think there have to be steps made and provisions made to ensure that it is suitable for neurodivergent young people as well. I think the legalese, the jargon and everything that, unfortunately, is essential within the housing system are not accessible to many young people in general, but especially not to neurodivergent young people. So, I think, when you’re looking at those reasonable steps, and keeping in contact, there has to be scope within the guidance to really make sure that neurodivergent young people aren’t getting further left behind by legislation than they already are.

Okay. Anything, Phoebe or Sharon?

Just to say I agree as well with what Bill and Helen have said. I think, as well, for us as an advocacy provider, we want to make sure what these reasonable steps when they’re defined within guidance, and it’s making sure that young people are aware of what the reasonable steps are, but there’s also, then, for young people, if these reasonable steps are not being fulfilled, the means to challenge it and hold accountable, to make sure that they are getting the right support and access to housing as well.

We will move on to Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. I think I’ve understood that you’re calling for a national protocol on housing and social services functions in local authorities. But what about the wider picture, in terms of facilitating a multi-agency approach of case co-ordination? Does this Bill go far enough in terms of ensuring that there is better co-ordination between agencies in Wales?

I didn’t quite catch the Welsh at the end there, Siân, sorry. Can you just clarify?

I was asking you whether the provisions in the Bill are going to be enough to ensure multi-agency working, not just within local authorities. You've talked about a national protocol for local authorities, the different departments to work together better, but are the provisions wide enough and clear enough in terms of multi-agency working?

Diolch. I think it’s positive to see the more explicit reference to multi-agency working than maybe there has been before, and an acceptance and encouragement of the fact that it needs to go beyond just local authorities. So, I would say, 'Yes, it’s a positive.'

I think, when we’re looking at that multi-agency working, one of the key asks that EYHC have had over the years is that, if it’s looking at multi-agency working regarding case co-ordination of a young person, that shouldn’t just be an opportunity for practitioners to come together to resolve the case for the young person there and then—which obviously it should be—but it should also be seen as an opportunity for practitioners to reflect collaboratively on what the situation is in their locality—so, where has this young person fallen through the provision, where are the gaps in the current service that has allowed this young person to be presenting as homeless.

I think there’s good stuff in there in the Bill regarding multi-agency working, and I think that some follow-up guidance around that reflective piece as well would be something we really support, as it’s something we feel can tighten up gaps that currently exist in the service.

Thank you for the question, Siân, it’s very important. I would say that it’s a step in the right direction. In terms of children in the care system, the key agencies, of course, are the two agencies within the local authorities, which are social services and the housing service.

But in terms of ensuring that the young person has the right placement, and is then given the right support to keep the tenancy—because that’s a challenge—we need more people, don't we? Perhaps we need co-ordination with mental health services—there are far too many people in the system with problems like that. And we need, perhaps, to work with services supporting issues around drugs, alcohol and so forth.

So, I would like to see the Bill going further. We are seeing that it’s very important to have a protocol and a national framework between social services and housing services. But I would like to see—if it’s practical—it going further, and that there is some kind of national framework that makes it compulsory for housing services and social services to co-operate, but also to have the guidance to give suggestions as to who else should be around the table to support young people in that situation.

What are your views, therefore, on the 'ask and act' duties on public bodies?

Again, it's a step in the right direction, if I may, Chair, but we are disappointed that it does leave education services outside of the 'ask and act' duty. Of course, education services aren't responsible for ensuring that people have homes. But they are the public service where nearly all children and all young people have a connection with them, on a daily basis, on a weekly basis. I would like to see that duty being expanded. Not that we expect heads to find homes for people, but if a young child tells a teacher, 'I’m concerned, Mummy is packing things up in boxes and we don’t know where we’re going to go', that that teacher has a duty to raise this as a concern, and to ensure that someone in the homelessness service knows that that family may be able to have support.

Personally, I do understand the concerns of those working in education, because we are asking a lot of them, but they are the ones that children and families see on a regular basis. They are the ones that young people, especially in colleges—. A lot of the young people that we work with talk about the teachers in colleges as 'the good person, the person I trust, the person that I’m likely to share things with', more, perhaps, than social workers that they only see once every two months. So, I would be very pleased if the committee were to agree to suggest to the Government that education services should be included within the 'ask and act' duty.

I'll turn to Sharon, perhaps. Do you, from your experience, believe that it should include education? And are there other agencies, are there other bodies that should be included on the list?

We support this principle, but we are disappointed that schools and colleges are not included as public bodies, because they are a key link for identifying young people who are at risk of homelessness early on, earlier than any other institution perhaps. So, co-operation is vital, we think. Very often, social services and housing don't work effectively, and young people are falling through the gaps in this regard.

Bill, would you like to see more bodies included on the list? What about youth workers, for example?

I think youth work was certainly one that we were really disappointed not to see included, especially after really positive talks over the past couple of years in regards to how positive the youth homelessness co-ordinator role has been across different local authorities in Wales. So, it was a real shame to see that youth work wasn’t included.

Just to echo thoughts previously, it was just really disappointing that education wasn’t included. I won’t labour the point, as it’s all there in the White Paper report, but when you look at schemes such as the Upstream project in Australia—the Geelong project—that led to a 40 per cent reduction in youth homelessness presentations over a 10-year period. And there’s no other scheme that I’m aware of—and we do a lot internationally—that has come close to achieving that level of success in reducing homelessness presentation.

I think, as Helen alluded to, it’s not the responsibility of education per se, but those conversations are going to be happening in school anyway, so allowing there to be a protocol for teachers to be effective in supporting those young people, and then effectively allowing them to—this is maybe a strange way to phrase it—get back to teaching, because there’s a protocol they can follow, and then the people whose responsibility it is to be supporting those young people can get on with that support, is going to be a far more effective use of people’s time, and it’s just such a shame that it’s not even included.

On youth work, as Siân alluded to in the question, and the work that they do, and the unique ability for youth workers to be the trusted adults for those young people, there's so much in this space, and so much research, whether it’s for LGBTQ+ young people, neurodivergent, or young people in general. So many of the young people that unfortunately come into contact with the homeless system don’t have a trusted adult. And we know that youth workers, and sometimes teachers, can be their trusted adult. So, not to have a protocol in place, through this 'ask and act', which is a really positive piece of legislation, means that it just falls down, in my view, at certain points, because of the fact that the list doesn’t go far enough.

I’d also like to see it extended to primary care services, and I think there should be something similar in place in regard to private landlords and letting agents, although I appreciate that this part of the Bill looks at public bodies. Diolch.

In principle, we welcome the 'ask and act' duty, but we are disappointed that education has not been included within this. From a care leaver perspective, and going back to sections 23 and 37, with the provisions for care leavers, if a care leaver is over the age of 21, and they’re in education or training, the duties will still apply to them. So, we’re slightly confused as to why the Bill says that, but then, within the 'ask and act' duty, education is not going to be listed as having this duty, when the other duties will apply if a care leaver is in education.

We would also call for the youth work sector to be added to this list. We know they hold a really fundamental role in young people’s lives, particularly young people who may be more vulnerable, or may struggle with formal education. So, we’d really call for youth work to be added, and agree with Bill’s point about primary care services. In NYAS Cymru, we do a lot of work with care-experienced women and young girls who are pregnant or mothers. So, again, from that antenatal perspective, we feel that it would be really important for them to be added. We’ve heard so many stories where these women are pregnant and they’ve not been able to access housing, and that has gone on to lead to negative outcomes for their child protection cases. So, yes, we’d be really calling for that as well.

Thank you very much. And now, Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I was just wondering whether you have any concerns, from a young person's point of view, with the proposals to get rid of the priority group, because, obviously, young people are actually given priority at the current time.

I don’t mind going first. We support this. We think it’s a really archaic way of dealing with people coming into contact with a system that’s there to support them. So, yes, we support the removal. It’s something where, potentially, we haven’t had as strong a support for it from young people as we would have hoped. We would have hoped that they’d all be in favour of it, but that certainly wasn’t the case from the focus groups we held.

I think what that spoke to when we were speaking to them was very much that—to go back to what I spoke about at the start—young people appreciate that, currently, a number of them are getting a leg up in the system through priority need compared to other people coming into contact with the system. And because they know resources are so stretched, they’re very reluctant to be giving up something they see as providing them with a benefit.

That’s maybe our fault at EYHC for not quite explaining how priority need works, and that they wouldn’t be losing anything through widening that access and, in effect, getting away with it. But I think, as we would support it, I would just be conscious of wanting to state that it wasn’t something that we’re supporting as a result of young people being massively in favour of it, because I think it was about 66 per cent against, 33 for, when we spoke to young people. But we would support it because we think it’s the right thing to do.

How have you conveyed that to them?

We tried to explain that, in effect, the system currently has a number of people who, once you get to that stage, that section of a duty, will be owed a duty to be housed, and those who aren’t in priority need won’t. We maybe didn’t explain it as coherently as we could have done, because they then viewed it almost as 'us versus them', whereas, obviously, when you’re just widening the access to what’s there, it’s not on the individuals then going through it to effectively be in competition with one another. So, I think there’s maybe that sense of there being that competition, which doesn’t ring true with how the legislation lays it out.

From our perspective, there’s a short-term answer and a long-term answer. The long-term answer is that getting rid of priority need is the right thing to do. I think Phoebe alluded earlier to the fact that care-experienced people don’t just experience homelessness when they’re children; they can actually experience it later in life, where the protections aren’t there anymore. Particularly for single men, there can be real issues with housing care-experienced people who are adults and who don’t have that protection.

But in the short term, when social housing is in such short supply, it’s very hard to see how our children, who are the children that the state has taken away from their family, should not have a priority. If I’ve got a spare room in my house, and my daughter hasn’t got anywhere to live, and one of her friends hasn’t got anywhere to live, I’m going to give the spare room to my daughter because she’s my child. And these children—these 7,000 children—are our children; we’ve made those decisions. So, I think it’s a real dilemma.

I’m uncomfortable with the idea—if I’ve understood the proposal correctly—that the Welsh Government will take the power to do this, but then they won’t do it straight away while supply is so short, because one of the effects of removing prioritisation would be that the actual demand for social housing would become clearer very quickly, and hopefully that would push up supply.

I’m really sorry, Lesley, I don’t think that’s a really helpful answer, because it’s the right thing to do, but the short-term effects of it could potentially be damaging. I think what I would argue is that some of the rest of the things that the Bill has to say about young people leaving care could mitigate the impact of removing prioritisation on them as a group. But in the long term, we have real concerns about the lack of access to social housing for single men. And, of course, removing prioritisation in the long term would deal with that.

I absolutely understand. I wasn't surprised, really, when Bill said that the young people themselves had concerns. And if you’d have asked me how did they—. Looking at it, I think 66/34 is probably accurate, because you can understand why they would be concerned about that.

I think you’re right about the timescale as well, Helen Mary. I think we’ve been told 2030, which seems quite a long time, when most of the stakeholders we’ve heard from this morning want it immediately. So, I understand that. I don’t know if Phoebe or Sharon want to say anything.

Thank you. In principle, we understand what removing priority need would do, and, really, we should be in a situation where everyone in Wales can access housing and there isn’t that priority. However, similar to what Helen said, we know that the supply isn’t there, and we know that there are more different groups of people in Wales who are more vulnerable to homelessness and need that protection.

Within the White Paper, a proposal was made for care leavers to retain and have priority need until the abolition came in. So, that is something that we would call for, with the priority need going—for care leavers to remain and have that priority until it takes place and takes effect.

Thanks. I can't see Sharon, sorry. I don't know, John, if Sharon wants to say anything.

Thank you. We strongly support this, and we don't have anything different to say that—. I agree with what everyone else has said.

Okay, diolch. What’s your view on the removal of the intentional homelessness test? Again, I don’t know who wants to go first.

That’s really positive from our perspective. It’s always been really problematic for young people leaving care, who may struggle, as I alluded to in my answer to Siân earlier, to maintain their tenancies. And it’s always begged the question about who decides what is 'intentional'. Who knows what’s going on inside people’s heads.

We do have some concerns, though, about some of the proposals about where the duty will be removed. So, obviously, the duty will be removed if somebody is threatening and violent. But who’s going to define it? If somebody punches somebody on the nose, then that’s clearly violent, but if you’ve got a young person turning up at a homelessness service, upset, distressed, perhaps raising their voice, perhaps not being very warm and co-operative to staff, and the issues that Bill’s alluded to around young people with different communication needs, things like autism, where if you’re in one of those big public offices, you can really get triggered by the noise—. So, we have some concerns about who’s going to decide what constitutes threatening behaviour, and how that’s going to apply to vulnerable young people.

And similarly, with some of the things around intentionally destroying property, one of the issues—and committee members will have heard this—is cuckooing, where a vulnerable young person is living by themselves for the first time and other very unsuitable people move in with them. Is that young person responsible if that property then gets destroyed? And there are a number of those types of sets of language. And the things are around whether a person is co-operating—are they intentionally not co-operating? Well, again, how are people communicating with a young person whose lifestyle may be really chaotic?

So, we welcome the removal of intentionality; it’s had really negative effects on care-experienced young adults in the past. But we do think that more needs to be done around these definitions about under what circumstances, and who will decide, whether somebody isn’t co-operating enough, or is behaving in a threatening manner?

Okay. Does anybody else want to add anything to what Helen Mary has said with regard to those matters?

Not a whole load—I'm conscious of time—but a real duty has to be paid to the neurodivergent accessibility requirements on that in particular, especially the lack of contact and responding, and, also, just making sure that those physical spaces in which the assessments are taking place are conducted in sensory-sensitive environments, because, otherwise, behaviours that could tick the boxes of ‘threatening’ or ‘frustrated’—all of those are going to be more likely to be seen, which isn't fair on the young people, if you're not conducting it somewhere they feel safe.

Okay. Okay, Lesley? Yes, diolch yn fawr. Could I ask about local connection, and the fact that that is set to be retained as far as care leavers and people who are care experienced are concerned? Do you have strong views on that?

When we responded to the White Paper, I was actually quite surprised by the strength of feeling amongst young people that they wanted that retained. I didn't expect that, but they did, and that message is very clear. But what I think we'd want to be sure about is the element of choice around what that local connection means, because too often in the past it has meant that the local authority that the young person is being looked after by has got that responsibility, and that's where the local connection is. Now, in some cases, that child may not have lived in that community for a very long time.

We have some of our local authorities where the majority of the children whom they are looking after are actually housed in other authorities, some a long way away, some very close. So, you might, for example, be a young person who's being looked after by, let's say, Newport council, but you've lived in Rhondda Cynon Taf for five or six years—that's where your foster carers are, that's where you went to school and that's where your local connections are.

So, we'd want to be really clear that retaining the local connection for care-experienced young people is a good thing, but defining that local connection has got to be done in consultation with that young person. Now, there are complications then, because if the young person wants to be housed in Rhondda Cynon Taf, Rhondda Cynon Taf will have its own young people that it needs to house, and there will have to be more work done on those kinds of cross-county-borders protocols. But young people do want to have the right to stay where they feel is home, and I was quite surprised by the strength of feeling on that.

Okay.

I'll talk to this in regard to all young people—so, the young people we talk with, not just care leavers, who are, obviously, important. We were really, actually, disappointed to see the watering down in this space compared to the original White Paper. The White Paper, as I understood it, increased the number of people that local connection wouldn't apply to, and we thought that was a really positive thing. It talked a lot about found families for LGBTQ+ young people, and the support networks and support structures in place for LGBTQ+ young people, but also neurodivergent young people, again.

Within that increase in the list of people that local connection wouldn't apply to, we found that really reflected reality for those young people, because the young people we spoke to who were, maybe, fleeing a toxic environment in terms of bullying, or just an environment that wasn't safe for them—they're going to make that journey to another area, another part of Wales, whether that local connection legality is there or not. That part of the homelessness Bill isn't going to stop a young person wanting to move away from an area in which they don't feel welcome and don't feel they can be themselves.

But effectively, then, by not allowing them to present in that new local authority, you're effectively keeping some of the most vulnerable young people in Wales away and out of the services that they need to seek support. So, it was a real shame, because there was a lot there in the White Paper originally that was really positive, and now to see it removed is a shame. I can understand where the local authorities are coming from in terms of trying to manage that resource, but I'm not convinced that it would have the same impact that they maybe think it will.

Okay, Bill. And Phoebe or Sharon. Phoebe.

Thank you. Similar to what Bill has just said, we had really welcomed the proposals that were in the White Paper and the exemptions from the local connection test, so we were disappointed to see that care leavers in particular were not exempt under the Bill, despite the proposals in the White Paper. So, for us, we'd be calling for care leavers to have that exemption. I think it's worth noting as well that an announcement has come out—I think it was today—from the UK Government around the local connection test for care leavers, and it looks like they are going to be exempt from it in England. So, I think, for us, we’d be calling for something very similar to what UK Government is doing in England, to make sure that care leavers are not being disadvantaged by local connection.

Thanks, Phoebe. Sharon, anything?

Thank you. I agree with everything that everyone has said, and we are of the opinion that taking this out would ensure that priority is given locally for accommodation, as local connection punishes young people. It also means that a young person who has trauma in a local connections area, such as you have in Gwynedd—that they are punished for not being able to return after being bullied, or that they can't return to the area. So, policies allocating local housing to match this—that's our opinion in GISDA.

Diolch yn fawr. For those who are disappointed that there isn't an exemption for care leavers, what's proposed at the moment by Welsh Government is that they could use regulation-making powers to add exemptions, categories of exemption, as far as local connection is concerned. But an alternative would be having those exemptions on the face of the Bill, and then, if it became apparent that there was excessive impact or adverse consequences on a scale that made it very difficult for local authorities, those exemptions could be removed. So, it would turn it on its head, really, in terms of what's proposed at the moment. Would that be better, do you think, or not?

I think, potentially, for care-experienced young people, I'm not sure, as I understand it currently, if that would benefit young people more broadly or not.

Okay. Phoebe or Sharon?

I think, for care leavers, yes, seeing it on the face of the Bill would be really good. As Helen pointed out earlier, it's around 7,000 young people who are currently in care in Wales, and, as corporate parents, it's something to make sure that they can have a house in a location that they feel safe. So, yes, for us, seeing it on the face of the Bill would be a real positive.

Sharon, anything?

I agree with everything that's been said. And also, I think that accommodation should come with support, and not just to be put somewhere without any kind of support.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. And finally, then, in terms of questions from committee, Lee Waters.

I just want to ask about the broader range of accommodation options given to local authorities in discharging their main duty for housing, and whether or not there is any concern of any unintended consequences for young people.

It is a worry, and, again, it's about what Welsh Government needs to be doing to ensure consistent best practice. We all know that current practice varies hugely and that young people are sometimes being placed in accommodation where they've got a roof over their head but that's about it—hostel accommodation where they're sharing it with adults with problematic behaviours and all kinds of things.

I think there has to be some flexibility, and local authorities have got to be able to respond to the needs of that individual young person. But as things are at the moment, the use of unregistered accommodation continues to be a real issue for young people—actually 16 plus not just 18 plus. So, we would have some concerns about how broadly this is drawn.

So, in terms of your concern about inconsistency, what do you think the Welsh Government can do to mitigate those risks?

Well, it's a challenge, and it comes back to what I said earlier about the implementation gap—that we've actually got positive legislation now, if it was fully implemented, and if there were consequences when, for example, local authorities persisted in using unregistered accommodation when they shouldn't do it. I think it's about that strong national leadership, strong national guidance, and then an inspection regime that really holds authorities to account for the nature of the accommodation they're providing, and, at the heart of that, holding to account—and this is a real gap at the moment, in our opinion—is, when inspectors are inspecting services, they're not necessarily talking to the young people who are living in that property. They're looking at where the local authority has discharged that young person to, out of the care system, but they're not actually asking the young person, 'Does that place feel safe to you, is it somewhere where you're happy, is it somewhere where you think you can see yourself living long term?' And I think one thing Welsh Government could do is to build—. There is the duty to consult people using services that's in the Bill, which is something we particularly welcome, but we want to see that go beyond just when you're establishing services. It's about how you're delivering those services and how those services are inspected.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Yes, Bill.

Just quickly, I think we welcome it. I think within it there is the explicit reference to supported lodgings and supported accommodation, which we would support. Supported lodgings is a scheme we've supported for a long time at EYHC. The thing that caught my attention was the reference to returning home. We obviously think that, for a young person, the best place they can be is at home, and if they don't have to leave the family home for whatever reason, we would support that. The thing that I noticed was that, in the White Paper, there's explicit reference to mediation being used to almost achieve the return to home as an option on the table for that young person. I couldn't see that in the Bill, and I'm nervous around supporting something that encourages a return to home almost being a blanket option for young people, because for so many young people, LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent in particular, the reason they become homeless is because of the fact that their homes aren't safe spaces in the first place, and for a lot of that, it's maybe more nuanced than at first glance to a practitioner. So, I'd be nervous in supporting something that doesn't allow or doesn't support or have those safeguards in place for certain groups of young people, where that return to home might then be forced upon them by a well-meaning practitioner who doesn't maybe understand the full picture or full situation.

If I can just add to that as well, Chair, we see an increasing tendency for young people leaving the care system and reconnecting with their birth families when we have very good reason to assume that those families weren't safe, and obviously once the young person is 18, it is their choice about whether they have contact or not, but we have a bit of a concern that that emphasis on reuniting families and returning to home—a different approach is needed with care-experienced young people. It doesn't actually mean, and I'm not wishing to imply, that a care-experienced child can't return as an adult safely to their family home, because circumstances might have changed, things may be different for the family, and of course the young person at 18 isn't as vulnerable as they were as a child. But we would want some care, as Bill said, around how that is used, and the care-experienced young people need special care, special consideration in that space.

Okay, thanks very much. Phoebe or Sharon?

No, just to support the comments that have been made by both Bill and Helen.

Thanks, Phoebe. And Sharon.

Thank you. No, I have nothing to add on that. I agree with everything that has been said.

Okay, diolch yn fawr. Well, it just remains for me to thank you all, all four of our witnesses, virtual and here in the committee room, for the evidence that you've given today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Our next item, then, today is item 7, papers to note. We have a letter from this committee to the Welsh Cladiators regarding building safety, a response from the Welsh Cladiators, and then a letter from the National Residential Landlords Association in relation to energy efficiency in the private rented sector, so the representative body for private landlords. Is committee content to note those papers? You are. Thank you very much.

Item 8 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. Is committee content to do so? You are. We will move to private session.