Local Government and Housing Committee

Good morning, committee. Sarah Rhodes, deputy director of homes and people in the Welsh Government.

Bore da. Hannah Fisher, head of homelessness prevention legislation.

Bore da. Julie Stokes, Welsh Government legal.

Bore da, bawb. Perhaps I might begin with some initial questions. Firstly, in terms of context for the Bill, Cabinet Secretary, how will you give confidence to local authorities in Wales that they will have the resources that are necessary to make this Bill successful?

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. This Bill will transform our homelessness system here in Wales, and it's going to focus on that early intervention and prevention. We've not shied away at all from the significant practical and cultural change that this Bill requires. We've had our regulatory impact assessment, and that sets out the detailed comprehensive assessment of the cost of the Bill and that requirement for additional investment. So, we very much recognise the need for public services to be fairly funded and effectively and efficiently delivered, and we do recognise that that upfront investment is required. That will, though, result in a significant cost saving over time. So, I do very much understand the pressures that local authorities are under, and that's why I've proposed a phased approach to this implementation, but recognising that the reforms need to be funded sufficiently and sustainably, reflecting that true cost of delivery.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Is there anything else you could say in response to calls that we've heard as a committee for the Welsh Government to commit to fully funding the implementation of consequences of the Bill for those delivering services on an ongoing basis?

We have our strategic partnership agreement with local government, which says that where new responsibilities come with additional cost it may not always be about seeking that extra money, but about identifying funding that could be redirected from elsewhere to have that maximum impact, and, beyond that, any new responsibilities would be funded. Future budgets are obviously a matter for the next Government. As I said, there are upfront costs, but I think the actions that I've taken have laid a really strong foundation for the legislation to put that practice into motion.

You'll know that we've increased the housing support grant by over 60 per cent since 2019-20, and that now reaches £204 million in this financial year. We've already transferred £21.32 million of homelessness funding into the revenue support grant to give local authorities more flexibility to meet their needs, and that's something that we heard from local authorities about. That's over £240 million provided to homelessness services and prevention work in 2025-26. I think that's recognition, and I think it's significant, and just shows that we do understand the responsibilities and the cost to local authorities as well. But, as I said, this will, we believe, result in savings in the future.

Okay. Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Underlying all of the issues around homelessness and availability and allocation of social housing is housing supply, of course. I think we'd all agree that we need a step change in terms of the numbers of houses being built and the number of properties available in Wales for housing and rehousing. So, what can you tell us today, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of what Welsh Government will do differently in the future on housing supply, given that we absolutely need a step change?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I realise that this is absolutely an important part in the whole programme as well. I think it's crucial to understand the work that we have been doing and that has been going on to increase housing supply. We have record levels of investment, and that's over £2 billion in this Senedd term. So, that is significant investment, and that's including £466 million this year alone.

Again, we had the important work that Lee Waters led on the taskforce, which has given us a really good set of actions to deliver on to really push forward. We've got the taskforce implementation group—I'm always keen to find a more snappy title, because when you say the whole thing out loud, it takes half the meeting. But it has met. I chaired the first meeting of that in July, and that was to make sure that everybody around the table of that implementation group knew that there's a team Wales approach. This isn't something that just Government can do. We really need to garner that team Wales approach, and that's something that came through in the work of the taskforce as well, and that's been allocating some of those recommendations to others to lead on, who have that expertise. So, I think that's been really positive—to see the ambition and the appetite from wider partners as well. I also chaired the second meeting this week of that group, because I'm keen to see pace in that as much as possible.

We've also already made some progress via discussions with all local authorities across Wales on systems leadership, and, again, all health boards across Wales, just to look at improving the availability of land, and I'm really pleased to say that we've had really positive discussions with those.

We already have £9 million being invested into services provided by Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, Natural Resources Wales and Welsh Government's planning directorate. Obviously, that's led by my Cabinet colleague Rebecca Evans, and those new fee regulations are expected to come into force later, at the end of the year, and that's going to help generate some more revenue that will be reinvested into planning services. So, there's a whole package of things that we are doing, and those measures will help increase housing supply by improving the speed, consistency and capacity of the planning system.

But let me be clear again: we're going to leave no stone unturned in this. This is very much a focus not just within my portfolio, but across Government, and I'm determined to see the work that we can do in this housing supply area go as quickly as possible.

Okay. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Lee. Lee Waters.

Thanks. That's encouraging to hear, about the follow-up work. I just want to ask about joined-up policy here, because the other Bill we're considering and scrutinising you on is a building safety Bill, and we've heard evidence that there's a concern that that regime is going to reduce the amount of housing that could be suitable and available for social housing. So, here you have a Bill that is increasing the demand for social housing, and you're also simultaneously introducing a Bill that could be constraining the supply of social housing. So, in terms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the joined-up policy that we celebrate so much, I don't see much evidence of it in here. So, how are these two things being traded off?

Yes, so I think it's—. I'll be back with a building safety Bill very shortly, won't I? That wasn't some of the evidence that we'd heard when we were developing the Bill, and we felt confident, with the building safety Bill, that we would be able to manage that. Obviously, I'll have that more detailed scrutiny with you and the committee, I think the week after next. And on this Bill, I think the key point for this Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill is that we can't keep doing what we're doing. We know that demand is there, literally, and it's not just in Wales. The demand for supply in housing is something that I think we're seeing across much of the world; certainly when I speak to counterparts in other parts of the world, whether that's Australia, Canada, other places, they're seeing that demand.

I think that we're doing so much in terms of investing in our social housing in Wales. As I've said, it's record levels of delivery, record levels of investment. And I think the aspect of this Bill that we're working hard on is to try to keep people in their homes. So, that prevention work actually keeps people at home rather than going into homelessness, and that is what we need to do, not just for monetary terms, but actually for those individuals who are facing that homelessness.

But I very much understand that supply is a real part of this, and that's why I see that we have to keep doing everything we can, particularly with our ambition with social housing, and other ways. I'm keen to look at innovative financing models within social housing; we are having discussions around that. But, for this Bill, this is a real step change, how we deal with this in Wales. But, at the moment, we can't keep doing what we're doing.

Okay. Could I ask you about timing, Cabinet Secretary? You mentioned that some of the provisions will be phased in. We did hear calls, as we took evidence, for greater clarity around timing and the implementation of the Bill's provisions. Is there anything more you could say today to committee, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of greater clarity on the timing?

Yes, I think throughout the development of the Bill—and I know the committee will know how long the development has taken, through the discussions and the White Paper, and, after the White Paper, the discussions that we've had with partners—. And I think it has become very clear that a phased approach is necessary to ensure that effective implementation, and to ensure that we take people and our delivery partners with us.

So, I’m keen to make sure we have and co-produce an implementation plan with local authorities and the wider public service. But it's likely that the implementation of the Bill will be grouped into those three main phases, each coming after a pre-implementation period. So, phase 1 I see as the prevention, support and allocations provisions being implemented, and that's really in order to address the pressure at the front and the back end of the system. And then phase 2 will see the implementation of the ‘ask and act’ part, and phase 3 will see the abolition of the tests.

So, I think that's something that we've had discussions with all, whether it's local authorities and wider public services and others, on, and I just think that the phasing is crucial just because, as I said, of the real step change that this is going to make in Wales. So, it's important that the Bill's delivered in a coherent and sequential way just to make sure that public bodies, in particular local authorities, are prepared for those changes and are in a state of readiness for that implementation.

Thank you. Lesley.

Yes, if you could just say, Cabinet Secretary, the timeline for that, please—the years for phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3.

Okay. So, I think—. I wonder if—. Sorry, Hannah might be able to know better than I the dates.

So, should Royal Assent take place in the first quarter of next year, we think there would be a 12-month pre-implementation period in which we would develop much of the training and guidance, work with local authorities to transition between the systems, and prepare them for the changes. Then we would bring in, as the Minister said, the following year—so, 2027-28—the changes around prevention, the changes around allocation and also some of the changes around multi-agency work—so, all of the things that the evidence shows actually help prevention and mean that we can prevent more cases of homelessness before they hit crisis happening around that time. We'd then work with the wider public service to ensure that they're trained around the 'ask and act' provisions, bringing those in the following year. And then our latest date for commencement around priority need and intentionality is 2031—2030-31, I should say.

Okay, Lesley. Thank you. Okay, and now Siân Gwenllian. Siân.

Thank you very much. That's a lot of work for the next Government, then, according to that timetable. Could I turn to an issue that there's quite a bit of consensus around, I think, which is the need to bring priority need to an end? Because there is consensus around this issue, and the numbers are already low, with most local authorities not using priority need, why do we need to wait until 2030-31, as you have mentioned here? I can see with some of the other tests that that would make sense, but, with this one, why do we need to wait? Would it not be better to start this as soon as possible?

Diolch, Siân, and, just to be clear, the 2031 date isn't about delaying things either; it's about doing it properly and recognising the need for that phased approach, as I said. But the dates are indicative. If we can do things quicker, we will do it, and I'm obviously keen if that is possible as well. So, 2030-31 is the latest date, but I think that just recognises the considerable amount of work in the whole that's going to need to take place. As you said, there is a lot of work to be done, not just in this area, but in others.

But, as I said, a lot of this is about changing culture, and I think this is one area where that has been clear. So, as you said, Siân, I think the case for abolishing priority need is well made, and I think that a number of local authorities are well on the way to removing the tests, and that is really pleasing. As the committee knows, the tests can exclude groups of people who require support, often single adults and those with complex needs. So, as I say, there is a real reason to remove it.

But I am cognisant of the current demands on local authorities. They are very much our key delivery partner, and I want to ensure that their experience is heard and that they have time to work towards completely removing priority need and intentionality. The system, again, is about adopting that cultural change prompted by the Bill. There's groundwork policy work going on that we have undertaken, but there are challenges that remain. Homelessness services are working under serious pressure.

So, we've got to manage the pace and scale of change, not just as part of the Bill implementation, but as we continue to recover from some of the impacts of the pandemic and the ongoing costs of living. But, as I said, if there is a way to move quicker on this, in conjunction with our discussions with local authorities and other partners, we will.

Thank you. In terms of the priority need for all care leavers, do you not think that we could move a lot quicker on that, and that it would be possible to do that through existing secondary legislation? Have you given consideration to that in terms of people who are leaving care?

Diolch, Siân. The needs of care leavers are something that I personally feel committed to as well as in this post. I have given consideration to giving priority need to care leavers, and am happy to consider further throughout this scrutiny process. As you say, we do hold existing powers to change the regulations in relation to priority need, and we don't need primary legislation to do this. But there are a number of considerations to make before making such a change. So, the first is the likely implementation dates for the Bill, and, secondly, the effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions in the Bill around care leavers. So, the changes in the Bill are likely to have just much more widespread impact on care leavers than the changes to priority need. So, we are trying to keep care leavers out of the homelessness system completely. So, that's working in a much better way, to manage their transition to independent living and to ensure they are prioritised for social housing.

So, I think it's worth noting the changes that were made in 2022 under my predecessor Julie James. So, under those changes, it's very unlikely that any care leaver will not fall into another priority need group, particularly the newer group for people at risk of rough-sleeping. So, while I am really happy to consider this further, I think it does require some careful consideration.

I'll turn now to an issue that is a bit more contentious than priority need, and that is losing intentionality. Some local authorities are very concerned about this and have suggested that it could lead to unintended consequences. What's your response to these concerns?

Diolch, Siân. This, as you acknowledge, has been a very challenging policy area. I know that the committee has heard that there are strong opposing views about the role of the intentionality test. Just to be clear, the Welsh Government wants to create an inclusive homelessness service that's focused on prevention, meeting individual needs, and case co-ordination. So, our focus throughout the drafting of this Bill has been on how we can help people and not whether we can help people.

I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance, both between individual accountability, delivering a trauma-informed response and providing improved support and multi-agency practice to those who need it. But I'm sure you and others on the committee have heard, as I have, that some see it as a tool to manage behaviour. Others see it as an exclusionary lever, which disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable people. So, it's really clear to me that the intentionality test should not exist in a trauma-informed homelessness system. So, it's a test that, as I said, is applied inconsistently across Wales. Even in one conversation that I had with a number of local authorities, it became clear that, as I said, it is used in different ways. It can be used to be a gatekeeper for services, and that does penalise people whose behaviour is often shaped by trauma, or mental health issues, or, for example, substance misuse. So, I believe that the intentionality test doesn't help vulnerable people, and I think its ongoing presence undermines public service response, which is our intention in this Bill, to homelessness. So, again, I go back to that all services need to do their bit, and we need that wider public service response. So, I think that it's about supporting people rather than being an exclusionary mechanism.

Thank you very much. At the moment, of course, local authorities are encouraged under the current system to give a notice letter when people are in danger of being found to have made themselves intentionally homeless, that is the step before announcing and identifying that someone is intentionally homeless. Local authorities see that as a way of summarising the situation and a way of not having to use that final warning, in a way.

Is there some way that you could consider putting something like that into the legislation, namely getting rid of the intentionality, but that there would be another mechanism available for the use of the local authorities? They do find that very useful at the moment, don't they? We're not very sure what the statistics are on this. I did ask you over the summer how many notice letters have been sent out by local authorities, but you don't hold that information, so we don't know the scale of the issue properly. I wonder if you could consider whether there's a need for something in the Act that would be useful for local government in this area.

Diolch, Siân. As I said, the Bill does strengthen duties to assess need, support tenancy sustainment and promote that multi-agency co-operation to ensure that applicants are supported earlier and supported well, which I think is to the point that you're saying.

We absolutely believe that there have to be red lines, particularly for the most serious behaviour, so we've brought in those tests for violence and serious property damage in order to ensure that local authorities are able to respond strongly to behaviour that places their staff and others at risk. Then, we have brought in that deliberate manipulation test, which will also disincentivise gaming systems to access social housing.

Look, it's a very delicate balance. You've taken evidence from some who say they want me to strengthen this and add to those tests, and some who say I should remove any repercussions for any types of behaviour as well. I think we've struck the right balance, but it is a really challenging area, and I would welcome the committee's views here.

Okay. I think the point is not being against the removal of intentionality, but thinking about, 'Is there anything else that could be put in place that would be useful for local authorities?', because what they say now is that the threat can help the situation. I think that's the point I was trying to make. Would you have a think about whether something else can be put in place here as well?

Moving on to the deliberate manipulation of the homelessness system, I see that that touches somewhat on what I've already spoken about, but some witnesses have suggested that the wording isn't different enough from intentionality, and that it will still penalise vulnerable people. So, there's a little bit of ambiguity in terms of these two issues, isn't there? Perhaps there's a need to think seriously about how those two things dovetail together.

Thank you, Siân. I'm keen to hear the committee's views on that. Just in terms of the removal of intentionality, we have very much tried to keep that balance, because we do hear from local authorities and others around some of those issues. We're keen to hear from local authorities.

In terms of intentionality and deliberate manipulation, just to be clear, those two tests are different. The existing intentionality test and proposed deliberate manipulation test operate within different legislative systems. The effect and the impact of the tests are also very distinct.

The intentionality test determines entitlement to homelessness assistance, and the deliberate manipulation test relates to the allocation of social housing. It's aim is to prevent applicants from doing things or failing to do things for the purpose of improving the chances of being allocated to social housing. So, no test currently exists.

While some behaviours the test is developed to respond to may be similar to the ones provided for under the intentionality test, the tests do differ in approach, and they differ in severity of consequence. The deliberate manipulation test is narrower than the intentionality test in its application and effects. So, they are very different and do different things.

In health services, unacceptable behaviour doesn't exclude people completely from access to essential healthcare. Why should access to homelessness services be different?

The main purpose, as I said, of the deliberate manipulation test is to disincentivise and prevent prospective applicants who, in those very rare circumstances, may risk their existing accommodation in order to access social housing. On those rare occasions, I think behaviour is unlikely to start out of the blue, and it will be important that the implications of such behaviour are discussed with applicants at an early stage to prevent that unnecessary homelessness and to ensure their understanding of the consequences of deliberately manipulating the housing system. Local authorities will have the discretion to use the test, the effect of which is to remove the priority awarded under the allocation framework to a person who is homeless or owed the prevention of final homelessness duties, while also ensuring they can access homelessness support where necessary. This means that they would be deprioritised for access to social housing, but able to access homelessness assistance, so ensuring that there is still a safety net for people. And I think that just, again, goes to our point around being a public service response to homelessness as well. I do think that we have, again, struck the right balance.

And finally from me, Chair, on the property damage test, some stakeholders have raised concerns that this could be misapplied in situations, for example, of domestic abuse. How will you ensure that this does not happen?

Diolch, Siân. This is an important aspect as well. We considered the risk of misapplication of the provision to end duties carefully through the drafting process, and I think that's reflected in the careful wording of the provisions. So, duties can only be ended where there's no reasonable excuse for the actions taken by the applicant or member of their household, and that there are no special circumstances that would require the continuation of the duties. Those safeguards have been specifically inserted to just make sure that victims of interpersonal or familial violence, or those at risk of exploitation are not mistakenly affected. In cases of domestic abuse or cuckooing, action should be taken against the perpetrator and duties should not be ended. So, it's my expectation that other interventions and support services should be brought in by local authorities to support victims and survivors. I don't know, Hannah, if you wanted to add anything on the drafting.

We did really consider the needs of domestic abuse survivors and people at risk of exploitation in the drafting, and that is the reason that those provisions have been built into the Bill. We're working very closely with domestic abuse stakeholders and others as we develop the guidance to support this, and that will be explicit—that we are not looking for partners of violent people, their family members or parents of children with behavioural issues to be affected by this. This is about serious violence, and the guidance will be very clear about the potential pitfalls, how they should be avoided and which partners should be engaged when working with these families.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Siân. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. Looking at local connection, we heard some very varying views, but I think we heard some very strong support for some groups to be exempt, and that those exempt categories be placed on the face of the Bill, so veterans and care leavers, for example. Currently, the way the Bill is drafted, that's not the case. Would you consider amending it to include that, and maybe further down the line, if it became unrealistic, you would then be able to remove those exemptions?

Diolch, Lesley. So, there are two main risks that need to be managed in terms of the local connection. The first is the risk of overburdening local authorities, and the second is the risk of discrimination when proposing different treatment for certain groups. In terms of the risk of overburdening local authorities, I have listened very carefully to the feedback of local authorities throughout the development of the Bill. This is something that came through with officials' discussions with local authorities, I think came up in discussions through the White Paper previously as well, and then in my discussions with local authorities. And it's clear to me that local authorities already face challenges of cross-border working. So, they're understandably concerned about the potential for overburdening an already pressurised system. That is some serious feedback for me to take heed of there—leaving them at risk of being overburdened or undermining our wider policy intention by not addressing this risk. That's why the Bill ensures that the main housing duty is focused on people in Wales and in our communities.

While I do intend to look at making further exemptions in the future, I do recognise that there may be particular groups that can be disadvantaged by the concept of local connection. This has to be done in a managed way to manage the risk of potential discrimination. Any differential treatment for particular groups has to be justified with that robust evidence.

There is more work for us to do as the evidence has to be considered for all groups, not just certain groups. We have to look across the board. There is work to do there, but ensuring we get the balance right and managing all the risks is vital. The Bill gives us a mechanism to do that and we can consult and prepare regulations that the Senedd would be asked to approve before the requirements came into force.

There are things that we're doing for the groups that you've just mentioned as well. We've already briefly touched on care leavers and you just mentioned veterans, and maybe I could just say some of the things that we're doing around veterans as well. In Wales at the moment, veterans and armed service personnel can qualify for an allocation of social housing at any local authority to which they choose to apply, regardless of whether they have a local connection or not.

We do recognise that a lack of local connection can still lead to deprioritising of social housing, which can act as a barrier for veterans, and in terms of accessing suitable accommodation in a timely manner. So officials are currently considering plans to prevent local connection acting as a prioritisation mechanism for veterans applying for allocation of social housing using the existing powers. That will stop veterans being pushed down any list just because they don't have a local link.

There is work going on alongside this Bill to review the national housing pathway for ex-service personnel and seek ways to ensure that it's consistently applied across local authorities. I just want to give an example of where we are trying to—. We recognise some of those issues and we're trying to, in parallel, work there, but we feel that what we're proposing has that right balance.

Okay, thanks. The new local connection to Wales test—again, there was one witness specifically who failed to understand the rationale for having it, because she didn't think it would make any material difference, and it could exclude people with no local connection anywhere. Was that the intention?

No. In terms of that, there's no policy intention to exclude people with no local connection who are currently able to access services in Wales. I have had concerns raised by some regarding the impact of that new local connection test, in terms of those who may not have a local connection anywhere and who would currently be offered assistance under the main housing duty in Wales.

The circumstances in which a person may have a local connection to an area are unchanged in this Bill. They cover a wide range of circumstances, and that's linked to residency, employment, family associations and special circumstances connecting a person to an area. This ensures that local housing authorities have that flexibility to take into account particular circumstances that may be specific to individuals or their own area as needed.

So, I do hear those concerns. I know that you have heard those concerns as well, but I'm confident that we don't need to amend the Bill to respond specifically to that. The regulation-making powers give us the ability to add detail to the meaning of ‘local connection’ and to provide specific exemptions to the requirement to have a local connection to Wales in order to benefit from the main housing duty. Again, it's a very complicated area and it does have to be done really carefully. We need to ensure a consistent approach applies across Wales, for example for those who don't have a local connection anywhere—I think that's there.

Just to be clear as well, and I know the committee would be interested, if we encounter a situation such as the Ukraine war, the regulation powers in the Bill would enable us to ensure such groups can get help, for example by exempting them from a requirement to have a local connection. The same approach could potentially be taken for other specific groups who may be unable to demonstrate a local connection to anywhere. It is a really complicated area. I don't know if Hannah or Sarah want to add anything to that.

You've just mentioned individuals with no local connection. And again, we heard evidence from one person particularly who was concerned that people would be left drifting if they didn't have a local connection anywhere. Currently, if you haven't got a local connection wherever you apply, whichever local authority you apply to, they have that responsibility, don't they, for you. So, again, are you concerned that that is the case—that people with no connection would be just left drifting?

No, because local authorities would have that—. To find that local connection somewhere else, there would be time with the local authorities to work with people who are in that situation. But then, I think your experience would say that there would be a local connection, whether it's in Wales or outside of Wales, where that would happen. I don't know if Sarah wants to add.

Thanks, Minister. We are aware there are a small number of people who might fall into this category. But as the Cabinet Secretary outlined, the special circumstances aspect of the local connection element within the Bill provides that flexibility to enable local authorities to be able to support someone. And we also, with the regulation-making power, can carefully look at what might be some of these circumstances and how can we, if we need to, then specify within regulations. But we do need to do it really carefully, as the Cabinet Secretary says, because there's a real risk with local connection that if we don't look at the regulations really carefully, and be very specific in terms of their development and drafting, we inadvertently open up the system. So, it has to be managed very, very carefully.

Would you accept that what you describe is a weakening of the responsibility that local authorities have, compared to the current situation, where there's that duty, as I think Lesley described, if somebody without any connection to any local authority in Wales turns up at the local authority's door, then there is a responsibility on that particular local authority? So, what you describe, possibly dealing with matters through regulations or a local authority having the flexibility to house if they think fit, is that a weakening compared to what we currently have?

I wouldn't say it was a weakening. We can't keep the test as it is, so we're creating a distinct and unique homelessness service across Wales. As I outlined at the start, this is going to be a significant change for our services, and it has real benefits. I think we've got to be careful that we don't create any unintended consequences from making these changes. I think the Bill introduces that local connection test to determine entitlement to the main homelessness duty, to ensure that the main housing duty is focused on people in Wales and our communities. But I think that is something that, as Sarah outlined in your question and Lesley's question, affects a small number of people. But there will be that exemption that local authorities would be able to help, and we are talking about a small number of people.

I think it's worth adding as well that, obviously, Hannah talked earlier about the lead-in times for some aspects of the legislation. We're very cognisant of the fact that in switching on various aspects of the legislation, we also have to ensure for those different aspects that we have guidance or, in certain circumstances, regulations ready to go at the same time as well so that those provisions are supported with the necessary guidance or regulations. We're very cognisant of that and working through all of that, and this is probably an area where those regulations will need to be developed to come online at the same time as this provision comes online.

If we can look at the prevention and support aspects of the Bill now, the Audit Wales recent report found that local authorities are currently not using all the tools that they now have available in relation to prevention. Certainly, with my own council, I come across aspects of that, where they don't seem to be able to use what they've got to make sure people stay in their homes. You mentioned earlier in an answer, Jayne, that you'd been talking to one local authority and the tests were not being used the same. We've got 22 local authorities in Wales and a very inconsistent approach to such things. So, what work have you been doing with local authorities now to make sure that they use the tools they currently have ahead of this new legislation coming in?

I probably should be clear: there were three local authorities in the room, and they all told me different ways of how they were managing that particular test. One of the things I've been doing is going around Wales to have particular discussions with local housing cabinet leads and the directors, heads of service, all in the same room, on a regional basis, to discuss some of the really good practice in some areas. The intention is for us all to learn and for me to also help take that across Wales, at those regional ones, but for local authorities to see what their neighbours are doing as well. So, I very much take on board that point. And just to say, I do welcome the work of Audit Wales and their consideration of this. The aims of this Bill I think aligned very well with their recommendations.

I think the recently published annual homelessness statistics demonstrate that there is good practice in some areas, and that's having a real impact. Another example of a local authority—and they weren't at that other meeting—is Neath Port Talbot. They have actually reported a prevention rate now of 80 per cent. They've basically restructured their services in anticipation of this Bill, and I think they've shown that their changes to more preventative practice are really seeing that through. We know that that is a real shining light, and we need to get that good practice through as well.

We have organised some best practice events across Wales, where local authorities can share their experiences. We've had learning events, enabling local authorities to hear and see some of that innovative practice, just from further afield, such as the work that's going on in Manchester, and also the work that's going on in Scotland. That, I think, has been good, and that's something that officials have been leading, as well as the other areas that I've been involved with. The most recent event covered managing supply, fostering positive relationships, and they've had four workshops covering different aspects of prevention.

We've also got a rapid rehousing summit, to showcase some of those progressive approaches, later this month, so I'll be attending that. We've recently undertaken a deep-dive into rapid rehousing in Cardiff, Conwy and Rhondda Cynon Taf, to look at how data and information on diverse housing needs can accurately inform the delivery of housing supply. Those statistics and data are going to be shared at that rapid rehousing event. But perhaps officials want to just say a little bit more about how that work is going on with local authorities.

Absolutely. We've been engaged with local authorities for several years now, working on this Bill, and trying to get the balance right. We are certainly seeing, in the areas that are keen to adopt this practice earlier, that that is starting to show some results. The average prevention rate across Wales remains in the mid-50s, but in certain local authorities, we are seeing it hit 70, and, in one case, 80. We know that those are the local areas that have really placed a focused practice around prevention and sought to increase the work of their workers there. So, there's a lot for us to share, and we are sharing that. We meet with local authorities every six weeks to have these conversations and to share best practice, and we're really committed to working with them on the further development and implementation of this Bill.

We're currently consulting with them around how they would like the guidance to be formed and how they'd like to work with us to develop the training. We have an event in the planning around case co-ordination, and we're seeking to bring some national—I mean across the UK—models of case co-ordination to Wales, so that they can start to look at how that compares with what they've got, and, for those of them who don't have anything yet, whether they'd like to adopt some of those models, because those models are shown to be working. There's real interest in that, I would say, across Wales.

Manchester in particular has shown it's not innovative at all, and they wouldn't mind me saying that. They say themselves, 'This isn't innovative; it's just about doing things differently', around improving prevention and reducing reliance on temporary accommodation. We've worked really closely with them so that they can share their learning with local authorities, and we've been doing that over time. And, really, it's quite simple things like using your most experienced staff as troubleshooters, because there is churn in the workforce, as you will know. Often an inexperienced housing worker just might not have those levers or that experience to know what they can pull, what they can do, to really help this person in front of them, whereas a more experienced housing worker can look at a file and see something that an inexperienced one doesn't. So, those are the things we're really trying to encourage local authorities to taken on.

Many of them are moving to six-month prevention already. Many of them are adopting prevention support and accommodation plans already. We're already working with them to draft a template, so that we can have some consistent practice across Wales around what those PSAPs cover and how they can reflect the requirements of the legislation in practice.

Clearly, you're taking a very proactive role in this. Would you like to see local authorities themselves leading a bit more, rather than the Welsh Government having to do so much?

I think this is the fact: building the sort of focus and the ambition of what we want to do, and trying to get that enthusiasm with local authorities, this is going—. You know, I've been very clear: this is what we want to see. We intend this to happen. Obviously, it's at the Senedd's will, but this is the way we see things. Things cannot stay the same. I think, in those discussions and our constant engagement with local authorities, it's hopefully changing that mindset. As you can see, some are, and I think that sends a really positive message to the rest of them, because when I'm sat in the room, if I was sat there as one local authority, I'd be looking at the other one thinking, 'Well, why are they doing that and getting up to 80 per cent, and we're still—?' There might be some reasons for that, but it's just keeping that competitive edge, maybe, with local authorities as well, because there are some great things going on in areas.

I mean, sharing best practice has always been an issue, I think, and I'd say we've got 22 local authorities sometimes doing things 22 different ways.

Yes. I think it's trying to find the—. I think, sometimes, we look a lot at the differences between areas, and actually, there's a lot of commonality. I think we need to get beyond that. That's not just in this area, but I do think this is an example of where we've got similar problems. You can't just try and say, 'Well, this one area and it's so different from the next one' or—. We have to get underneath this, and we should look at where we have things in common and learn from that area, rather than focusing on some very small differences.

Do you think the Bill as it's currently drafted provides applicants with the right to request a review of reasonable steps during the six-month prevention period? Do you think that should be more clear, because I think there are concerns that it's not as explicit as it should be?

The Bill provides applicants with that right to request review of the reasonable steps taken during that six-month period. Again, I'm keen to hear from committee on that. Again, the Bill introduces the prevention support accommodation plan—Hannah's already mentioned PSAP, so that is a 'PSAP'. We're all getting used to those. They do require that local housing authority to document their assessment of an applicant's case in a plan whenever it considers it owes a homelessness duty. So, again, the Bill does provide the applicant with a right to request a review—at any time while the plan's maintained—and that right of the review includes a review of the appropriateness of the steps to be taken by the authority during a six-month period. But, again, like I said, I'm keen to hear committee's response on that.

Okay. On the new duty on local authorities to help an applicant retain accommodation, obviously, in the White Paper it said 'a duty to provide support'. Why have you changed from 'provide support' to 'help'? Is it any practical difference or is it just language?

There's no practical difference between the duty and the proposed duty to support a person to retain accommodation proposed in the White Paper. The White Paper proposed a duty to provide such support in order to assist an applicant to retain accommodation, and the White Paper proposed that the duty should apply to an applicant who the local housing authority assesses as requiring support to retain their accommodation, rather than a universal duty, and placed an emphasis on multi-agency practice and the use of the duty to cooperate. I think the Bill does deliver on this, and that places a duty on the local authority to take reasonable steps to help the applicant retain their accommodation. So, there isn't any practical difference.

Okay. And, currently, you've got the 12-month limit on help to retain accommodation. Is that going to stay, or do you think it should not have a limit?

That's in line with our White Paper proposals, and the Bill now sets a general time frame from the duty to retain for 12 months, and that provides assistance to local authorities as they plan with their resources and creates a general end point for the duty. This does align with feedback that we had from stakeholders, particularly from registered social landlords, who are really clear that the duty's main effect should be to stabilise the transition into settled accommodation. They were very clear that the risk around retaining accommodation often emerges early and in the first few months of tenancy, and that's crucial in avoiding repeat homelessness. So, the 12-month time frame focuses resources where they are needed most. Sol, that's where we've responded.

But the Bill does provide for flexibility, and it sets out a range of specified circumstances in which a duty can come to an end, and it is also able to continue the duty beyond 12 months, if necessary. But, just to be clear, it isn't a universal duty. It applies only where the local authority considers that the applicant remains at risk of homelessness without further support. It doesn't exist to cover all forms of need, and will be supported by other long-term options, such as Housing First or supported accommodation, which might provide a more suitable pathway.

Okay, Lesley? Peter Fox.

Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. A couple of questions on accommodation, if I may, just to start. Witnesses have raised some concerns that the applicant consent may not be a sufficient safeguard when local authorities are discharging their duty on non-traditional housing options. You previously suggested some independent advice could be included in the guidance to add some additional assurance and safeguards for those individuals. I just wonder what consideration you've given to this or given to including it on the face of the Bill?

Diolch, Peter. Where the broader discharge options are offered, the Bill does provide a range of safeguards to ensure the offer is appropriate for the applicant. So, any home must be safe, suitable and available for at least 12 months, and the applicant must agree that the duty should end when accepting such offers of accommodation, having been informed of the potential consequence of doing so. But, crucially, the local housing authority must also check in with those providing these accommodation options after they move, to ensure the living arrangements are working well and to help them keep their home and avoid them returning to homelessness.

I think it's important to recognise that this additional flexibility is not built in to allow for lesser quality accommodation. It allows for access to accommodation that will be better suited to individuals' needs or, perhaps, circumstances. Section 60 of the current legislation sets out a duty to provide information, advice and assistance in accessing help when envisaging the need for signposting to independent legal and housing advice. The code of guidance already encourages local authorities to signpost applicants towards accessible, impartial advice, and the Welsh Government funds national advice services through the single advice fund and homelessness prevention grant.

I do hear the evidence that you've had to the committee, but I think, again, we have struck the right balance between the requirements on the face of the Bill and the role for guidance. I don’t know, Hannah, if you’d like to just add a little bit on the guidance.

Yes, sure. So, as the Cabinet Secretary says, there’s already clear guidance around signposting people to independent advice. We’re really happy to reflect on this following the committee’s recommendation, but I think the key point for us is that these are not lesser accommodation options. They may involve sharing with others, and, for those reasons, we’ve built in the additional safeguards, because I’m sure we’ve all lived with housemates in the past where we’ve had difficulties, and we want to acknowledge that by doing the follow-up work.

But, actually, signposting towards advice, or making people aware of advice probably applies across the cohort of people seeking homelessness services. So, we’ve taken that broader approach, so that that offer is made to everybody seeking homelessness services in Wales.

So, you think it’s clear enough—

Yes.

—what’s already laid out in the guidance. There’s no need for it to be on the face of the Bill.

No.

But we need to make sure that those people are signposted to that guidance. So, that needs to be listened to at all times.

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks for that. There are concerns also about the quality of temporary accommodation. Would you consider bringing forward the first review of temporary accommodation conditions, so that it takes place earlier than 2030?

So, in the Bill, we are committing to reviewing the condition and use of temporary accommodation across Wales every five years. So, the first report must be published no later than 31 December 2030, and that is a final date for completion. But it doesn't stop any report being undertaken at an earlier date. The reasoning behind that proposed timing is to allow us to take the learning and align some research models, if they're useful, with the full Welsh housing survey, which is going to be undertaken in 2027-28. I know the committee shares my view on the updated evidence base from the housing survey and that it is necessary, and the next survey, as you will know, will be more detailed than earlier surveys, and it's going to help us gather evidence that will better support affordable housing and homelessness policies.

Officials will develop a detailed tender specification, so that a procurement exercise can be commenced by the end of 2025-26, and that will enable field work to be carried out in 2027-28. And the results, then, will be available from 2028-29, so there'll be more detailed findings from 2029-30. I know it does seem a long way off, but, as I said, there's no reason not to do some of that work, with other reports are happening. But, just in the context of the wider work that we have, which I've just outlined, I think there are some real potential learning opportunities that will help inform the ongoing review of temporary accommodation that the Bill provides for.

I think most local authorities will already have an understanding of what the quality of their temporary accommodation is.

Yes.

Are they working with you? Couldn’t they actually make available their assessments, so that you can actually get a more holistic view of that temporary accommodation well in advance, so it helps you plan better as well?

Yes, I completely understand. As I said, that 2030 date is not just that. It’s sort of outlining what we’ve got planned. But, as you say, local authorities will know, and that’s something that will certainly feed into the work that is going on at the moment. But I’m keen to work with local authorities, just on those suitability proposals, using existing powers. So, I very much understand the work that’s going on, but working with local authorities, I think, will be important. Sarah, I think, can add a bit.

I do think it’s important to recognise that we do collect data from local authorities in terms of their use of temporary accommodation, and there are very high level types of accommodation that they use. But it would be a new data ask from them, and I think we’ve got to ensure that that ask is consistent, and be really clear, as the Cabinet Secretary says, on exactly what we want to know in terms of the condition of temporary accommodation, because that's going to be a detailed look at the types. So, it's really important for us to learn from the housing survey.

So, we might have 22 versions of what 'good'—. Okay.

Yes, and actually, then, we'd have to undo that and then go back out again. So, it's important that we get that consistency, do it right, learn from the housing survey as well, and understand what it is that's important to collect in terms of that information.

Yes, okay. Thanks. Moving on to partnership working, the 'ask and act' duty is a fundamental plank of this. I know that some witnesses have suggested that the current wording in that duty is not sufficiently clear that public bodies should be taking proactive steps to identify homelessness risk. Do you see a need to amend the Bill to clarify this and the specific steps that public bodies will be expected to take?

Thank you, Peter. I recognise that professionals engaged with an individual must be sufficiently equipped to identify signs of homelessness or risk of homelessness by the time of implementation, so there's certainly work for us to do. There's obviously a myriad of risk indicators that a professional should look out for, and also the types of settings in which 'ask and act' will be practiced will obviously vary very greatly. I don't believe it's appropriate to list a specific question or specific steps on the face of the Bill, just because it'll not fit the needs of all individuals, and I really don't want to create a tick-box exercise for homelessness. I don't think that that would lead to the effective person-centred response that I'm sure we all want to see. I think to help public bodies deliver 'ask and act', the duty has to be supported by detailed statutory guidance and a learning and development offer, and I'm very much of the view that those tools are more effective in setting out the detailed practical proposals needed to deliver 'ask and act'. I think that that's the way to go rather than putting that on the face of the Bill and those questions.

Okay. Could you remind us why you believe that schools shouldn't be included in 'ask and act'? Perhaps you can remind us. Have you considered the role of local authorities or local education authorities in being able to contribute to 'ask and act'? Surely children will be clear identifiers of where there could be domestic abuse happening.

Absolutely, Peter, and I have considered adding the LEA to the list of bodies subject to 'ask and act', but I don't believe it's necessary nor that it would achieve the policy intention, and perhaps I can just outline why. So, local authorities already have duties under the Education Act 2002 to make arrangements to ensure that their education functions are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. So that's set out. Local authorities and other relevant bodies, including governing bodies, must have regard to any guidance issued by Welsh Ministers in deciding what arrangements they must make to comply with a duty. So, in my view, and I've had detailed discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, as I'm sure my predecessor did, and also education colleagues, this existing duty to promote the welfare of children covers the arrangements for children at risk of homelessness already.

So, given the breadth of the existing law, I'm keen not to duplicate that work and instead we could place our efforts into building on the good practice that I've seen for myself, and I'm sure all of you will have seen some really good practice in schools. So, that will amend the existing 'Keeping learners safe' guidance, or issuing additional guidance if necessary. I haven't ruled that out. But there is some excellent practice happening in school linked to community-focused work, family focus and safeguarding, and this provides, I believe, the right balance and the right basis for us to do so in our work. And I think that it brings us, the schools and the teachers and the education unions along with us in this area, because there is that work going on already. I don't want to give the impression that that doesn't actually happen already in schools, but we need to make sure that this—

No, no, I accept that there are robust safeguarding measures in schools. I can see that. So, are we confident then that, when their processes identify something, there's a time where they meet this legislation and then priority housing and things like that can be done? How are you creating that interface?

Merge it. Yes, absolutely. Obviously, there is work going on as we speak. Hannah, do you want to talk about the discussions with colleagues in education?

Yes, of course. That is exactly where we need to do the work, really. We don't want to recreate that referral pathway, because it works, and it works well and teachers are extremely familiar with it. What we do want to do is to improve what happens at that bottom end, very much because homelessness is not necessarily a safeguarding issue, and we wouldn't want any family, any set of parents, to think that they'd somehow failed their children in becoming homeless, and we really want to manage how that safeguarding system is used. It could be better at that back end, and that's where we really want to concentrate our efforts to do the work. But the clear feedback from schools is that concentrating our efforts there and helping them to think about how they support the intake in their year groups as a whole is really important.

Schools are very worried, because their experience is that families feel exposed if they're the only people who are being asked about something, and they become very careful about what they share and they're less likely to ask for help. And schools' experience is that vulnerable families tend to only trust the school and be very wary of other parts of the public service. So, we don't want to lose that trust. We just want to make sure that schools have the relationship with their local housing authority to build on that trust. And there are, not a huge number, but a small number of schools doing incredible work where the council officers come and work in a school hall one afternoon a week and families come to the school and they feel safe to have the conversation there.

There are schools that are doing risk assessment work across a year group. So, everyone gets asked the same questions, but the school is able to then put those families on the right pathway to the right support without those families feeling like they're being exposed. And we think that's a strong argument. It's an argument that teachers are making to us, so that's where we want to concentrate our efforts. It's not to say it's all there, but I think we know the places where we need to do the work.

Thank you. That's important.

Peter, could I just bring Lee in at this stage?

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense, but I just want to test what appears to me, at face value, to be a slight contradiction in your approach, because we heard earlier in your approach to local government that there was good practice, but there was uneven practice, and the new systems that you're bringing in as part of the Bill will be a driver for having consistency and good practice implemented. That's your local government approach. Your education approach is not the same: it's saying, 'Yes there's good practice, but we're not going to introduce systems to drive consistency of reform.'

I think that's part of some of the discussions that we've had with the teachers, as well as, as Hannah has said, the schools. We've looked at different ways of how people respond and I think we've set out—and Hannah, I think, helped set out there—how we feel that what we have in place for the schools can actually work with that guidance, because I think that we have to listen to the people who will be implementing this. And I think the point that Hannah made around trust within schools and public services, and where young people will perhaps speak, and families don't feel like they can't speak, we already have that area of real trust, and I think we have to really listen to what they have said in that area. But Sarah, I can see, wants to come in so eagerly.

I don't think that's what we're saying; I think what we're saying is that we've already got the legislative framework within education—we've got the hooks. So, we've got the hooks to statutory guidance already, and so there is an existing legislative framework that we can hook into. And as Hannah says, we don't want to duplicate—there's no point in duplicating where there are existing things. So, let's work with that framework that's already there and strengthen that, seek to strengthen that and seek to strengthen the practice as well. So, we've got all the framework; we need to work, as Hannah says, at that back end to make sure that homelessness risk and all those pathways and the referral routes are there, and they know the guidance is there to support schools in doing what many of them are already seeking to do.

I understand that, and I completely understand that the operating model within education is sensitive—those points are well made and taken—but there still does seem to be an inconsistency in approach, because you're relying on the spreading of good practice in one area when you accept the spreading of good practice has failed in another. If diffusion of innovation was that simple, we'd have done it; it's clearly not simple, and the Cabinet Secretary has given fresh examples today of local authorities having different interpretations of their duties. So, I understand you're trying bespoke approaches in different sectors; I understand that. But if it doesn't work in one, what makes you think it's going to work in another?

And it's a balance. I mean, we've got a balance of legislative leaders, statutory guidance, promoting best practice, and the emphasis is maybe slightly different in different sectors, recognising the differences in those sectors and also ensuring that we can take those professionals with us as well. Obviously, our key delivery partner here is local authorities, and they have the key statutory responsibilities in respect of homelessness. So, our emphasis in terms of local authorities is stronger in the legislative space because of that statutory framework. So, you know, absolutely take your point, there is a different emphasis, but I think we're using all the tools and the levers and just putting a different emphasis depending on the context of that individual sector.

Peter.

Yes, I get your point. I can see that perhaps as part of the family of local authorities, there is more uniformity in the provision of education because of the statutory regulations, where it's not subject to the vagaries of political direction so much as other parts of the organisation. I could perhaps see that.

It's clear that you've already been having some discussions with the Home Office, because I noted you said that local connection exemptions had been agreed. I wondered, perhaps, if there's anything more you can tell us about your discussions with the Home Office. Have you had discussions with them regarding perhaps extending the duty to the police?

Diolch, Peter. I'm in correspondence with Home Office Ministers, planning to meet them to discuss the potential role of the police. I don't want to prejudice the outcome of those discussions, because they are ongoing, but I'm very happy to continue to update the committee on those discussions when I'm able to do so.

And is there anything further you want to tell us around refugees and the Home Office asking them to adopt the duty?

Officials have been in contact with colleagues in the Home Office in relation to refugees during the development of the legislation. As you will know, asylum services are controlled by UK Government, and UK Government officials have been very clear from the beginning of our discussions that they're not in a position to support the inclusion of asylum services within 'ask and act'. And they are obviously not subject to a similar duty to refer in England.

Officials have been considering alternatives for non-legislative options, and we understand from official level discussions with the Home Office, the contract for asylum housing in the UK requires the provider to inform a local authority when it's ceasing support for any service user following a positive decision about their asylum application. So, what that means in practice is that local authorities are made aware of people who need support, which is what the duty to 'ask and act' seeks to achieve. So, in that way, we can see that it could deliver our policy objective through that alternative means, but obviously we're working in something that's not within our control.

Okay. Last from me, Chair: I know some local authorities have questioned what levers they have to encourage other public bodies other than registered social landlords to comply with requests for co-operation. Should the Bill allow cases involving other public bodies, not just RSLs, to be referred to Welsh Ministers if needed? At the moment, it's only RSLs.

Okay. The ministerial direction power in relation to the duty on RSLs to co-operate with local authorities when requested to provide accommodation does reflect the critical role of social landlords and what they have in delivering settled housing, and the need for a clear mechanism to resolve disputes where co-operation breaks down in that context. So, the wider duty to co-operate is about enabling joined-up support, for example, between housing teams, health services, social care—and that's best delivered through those local protocols, strategic planning and partnership agreements. But where serious concerns arise that can't be dealt with at a regional level, Welsh Ministers retain general powers of intervention under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and other relevant legislation, so those powers can be used where necessary. But our aim is to bring about a culture of that shared responsibility, and not top-down enforcement.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Peter. Thank you very much. Lee.

Thanks. I'm just going to ask about some specific groups that have come up in the evidence. We've already covered looked-after children, so I won't dwell on that. The issue of prison leavers—we've had some evidence that councils are still being presented with notice on the day, of prison leavers needing accommodation not going through the flagging process. We had some evidence from Clinks who said the issue of resettlement from Welsh prisons to England is an area where there is a gap, and, when you think of the prison in Wrexham in particular, where the majority of the prisoners will be relocating to England, there does seem to me a bit of a gap here between referring out of Wales into a different system, and I'm wondering what you're able to do to try and mitigate that.

Thank you, Lee, because I know this is an important area and something that the committee has historically been interested in as well. Homelessness on release from prison can lead to that cycle of reoffending and repeat presentation to homelessness services, and we know that that can cause a real, significant negative impact for individuals and wider communities. I just want to ensure that we provide people in prison with effective homelessness and housing advice, which really must begin when people go into prison and not in the weeks and days, sometimes, before they leave prison. So, pre-release planning is key in that homelessness system prevention, and that is something that we share with colleagues in HM Prison and Probation Service Wales and local authorities. So, we've been working closely with them and others to improve that pre-release planning to ensure continuity of support.

So, the Bill, as you'll know, strengthens duties to provide advice, co-ordinate services and prevent homelessness for people leaving custody, and it also clarifies the definition of homelessness for people in custody. But, as I say, I know this is an area of interest for the committee, so I'd be interested to hear any other things that the committee chooses to raise with us on this.

Sure. Well, I'm raising something with you now, which you haven't addressed there: the issue of referring out into England.

In terms of referring to England and the test, is that the test you mean through the local connection aspect?

No, not the local connection, but the duty to prevent homelessness.

Yes.

Perhaps one of your officials—

Yes, go on, Hannah. Hannah is probably best—.

I'm not sure; I'll try my best.

Well, we'll find out now. [Laughter.]

I'm being tested; this is fun. So, on 'ask and act', we're working to align 'ask and act' with the duty to refer in England. My understanding is that prisons in England are subject to that duty to refer—prisons in Wales will be subject to the duty to 'ask and act', and we are seeking to align those two duties so that the practice between those two and prisons is the same.

Moreover, what we have proposed in this Bill is that local connection referral, so that is where a person presents at the wrong local authority or a local authority becomes aware of a person who does not live in their LA and seeks to refer them to the LA that they think is their home authority. Under the current legislation, that happens quite far down in the system, at the point that relief duty is considered. We are proposing in this Bill that we bring that referral forward for prisoners. So, a prisoner alerts the local authority to which that person has a local connection at the point where they become subject to the prevention duty, which would be six months prior to their release point.

The aim of that is that the local authority from which the person should be getting help helps them from that stage. What tends to happen now is the LA of the prison becomes involved, they do some of the prevention work, often very limited and not as effective as it could be, and they make the referral later in the stage. As you say, too often, that is very close to the release point and that local authority can do very little, and it’s a real failing in the system. So, we hope that, in bringing that local connection referral forward—and we’re talking to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that so that we can do that to English authorities earlier as well—we’ll get the right local authority aware of the person much earlier, and they have that six-month period in which we hope, very much, to protect the accommodation that that person is in; if that can't be done, to prepare to relieve and ensure that they do not leave prison into homelessness, which we think is a real opportunity of this Bill and a real risk at the moment.

So, that's a neat theory, but in practice there are lots of areas where that can go wrong, aren't there? We've heard evidence about time served, for example, having an effect on the certainty of the release date, and we've also heard about variability within Wales amongst local authorities—heaven knows what the variability in England, where they're not subject to this duty, will be. So, we can anticipate that there are going to be significant implementation challenges here. I hear what you say, but, even with that, there are still going to be problems. So, knowing that, what more can we do to mitigate it?

We're working currently with HM Prison and Probation Service Wales, as our key link, and we're also working with the Ministry of Justice and the policy leads within MOJ as well. So, we have a post-custody accommodation working group, which is jointly chaired by myself and my equivalent in HMPPS in Wales. We're looking at what that implementation piece looks like, as well as how we can improve practice at the moment as well. So, there are two streams of work that we're looking at under that group.

So, when we're looking at the implementation plan, we, funnily enough, in the last meeting, have been talking about, ‘Okay, how do we ensure that cross-border working as well?’ and we need a specific stream of work looking at how do we improve that, both for people who were in Welsh prisons who are going back to England, but also we've got a lot of Welsh people in English prisons who need to come back to Wales as well. So, there's a learning and training piece as well around communication for the prison service in England as well as HMPPS in Wales. And we've been talking to HMPPS about how can they help us do that piece with the wider prison service, because we absolutely recognise that it's not just prisons in Wales.

For each strand of the public service for this legislation, there are discussions ongoing, implementation work in train. I would say, in respect of HMPPS, it's probably more progressed because we've got an established relationship with them and we've been working for some time to try and improve. We recognise all the issues that you flagged. We have seen some improvements. I think, for the standard determinate sentence 40, the early release scheme, some new processes were put in place in terms of data sharing and trying to improve the timeliness of that data sharing with local authorities—so, trying to take the learning from what was a very intense period of release and to put that into standard practice. We do recognise that we're not there yet and there is more work to be done, but there is work in train both in terms of the current operation and for the future for this legislation.

Given that, notoriously, this is on the jagged edge of devolution and is complex in any event, have you considered a formal review period to be able to periodically assess whether or not this is moving as fast in the way that you wanted?

We're looking more broadly in terms of the review and evaluation of the legislation, but—

This specifically, because we know this is going to be challenging.

Yes, we can absolutely look at that.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. And then, secondly, to the point about the no recourse to public funds, which is those people, typically, going through the immigration system, where they're not able to be caught by the duties of the Act, but they do rely on public services, we had evidence that they're likely to be needing hospital care more, because they're not getting the preventative care that you would get in a housing situation. The evidence we heard was that there still would be an ability within this legislation to apply the duty to provide information, advice and assistance under the housing Act, which would not cut across the legislation on no recourse to public funds, but would provide practical help to try and, again, mitigate some of the worst aspects of that. Is that something that you're able to do?

As you said, this is, again, a difficult issue, and I am very concerned about the impact on people with no recourse to public funds, the evidence you've heard. Again, I think we've looked to see what we can do in this area. From the evidence that you've taken, it would be good to hear from the committee if there was anything else that you think that we could be doing, because we think we are doing a lot in this area. We, obviously, fund a number of organisations, and particularly ones that offer support including access to shelter, stability and legal advice for those who have fled war and persecution, and there are lots of other things that we are doing in terms of the prevention there.

So, would you be open to amending the Bill?

I think it would be good to see if there was anything else you think that we could be doing in this area. We think that, at the moment, we have this in a particularly balanced place, bearing in mind that immigration is a reserved matter. But we think that—

But housing is not, and you are able to—

I can give a list of the things that we are doing in terms of the support that we are giving to people through the organisations.

Sure. My specific question, Minister, is: the evidence we've had suggests either improving the guidance or amending the Bill to make it clear that, under the housing Act, you are able to provide information, advice and assistance, and to make it very clear that this is help that can be extended to people who otherwise would have no recourse to public funds—is that something you'd consider?

Always happy to consider that. Just to say, our guidance assists public sector and third sector organisations, and I know that the Bevan Foundation has produced policy guidance for local authorities as well. So, there is work at the moment going on as well, but, again, I'm very happy to consider.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Lee. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for coming in this morning. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions on the generalities of the allocations. Obviously, I'm new to the committee, so please bear with me, but I know previously the committee has taken evidence from housing associations about the duty that they have to rehouse homeless people if their local authority requests them to do so, and obviously it seems that they're happy to do that, providing that there's a similar duty on local authorities to share the needs of these individuals. I just wanted to get your ideas on that, because I was quite surprised that didn't happen already, because I thought that made sense, and just wanted to get your views, really.

Thank you, Joel, and welcome back to the committee. I think you'll be seeing a lot of me in the coming weeks, but good to see you.

I know that, just on the reciprocal duty on local authorities to share information—I think that's what you're talking about with the support needs—again, it's something that I've heard from stakeholders as well, and I know that this is something particularly around section 33, and the stakeholder group has raised this directly with officials. I have considered their suggestion carefully. I'm not inclined to support it as I'm not sure that it's workable or necessary.

So, on the necessity point, we are committed to improving, obviously, that co-operation between local authorities and social housing providers. Obviously, that is important, that all partners understand the types of support needed and they provide them with suitable accommodation to prevent that repeat cycle of homelessness, which is what we are intending to do. Several provisions in the Bill have been drafted with the aim of improving partnership working and that exchange of information. One of those is the prevention support accommodation plans, PSAPs, and the expanded co-operation duty and new case co-ordination function will provide practical models through which information can be shared in line with data protection.

Hannah, I don't know if there's anything on that specific drafting that you'd like to add.

Just to say that there's a full data protection impact assessment that sits alongside this Bill, and we worked quite closely with the Information Commissioner's Office to develop the proposals. I certainly wouldn't want to speak for them, but the understanding we formed as a policy team is that our policy aims and the provisions within this legislation, which have been considered by the ICO, mean they are very confident that we are able, within the confines of existing data protection legislation, to do the things we want to do. So, we can deliver 'ask and act', we can deliver case co-ordination, and the existing legislation allows that. Of course, there would need to be individual information-sharing protocols to cover things like the case co-ordination function and to cover the referral pathway for 'ask and act'. And we have built in the agreement of the person to that referral happening, because that's going to be very, very important. There are safeguarding rules if the provider thinks that they need to go further. So, we're quite confident that existing GDPR rules and other data protection and sharing information supports the policy aims of this Bill.

So, with that in mind, then, you wouldn't think there's a need to have data sharing provisions—I can't remember the word I'm looking for; I'll try and make up a word maybe—to actually be mentioned in the Bill specifically, to give that greater confidence to those partnerships? There wouldn't need for that to be—

No, I don't think that's something, but, sure, if people take that into consideration—. But, we feel—. Obviously, we're committed to improving that co-operation between local authorities and homelessness services and their partners, but it's important to be clear about the sharing of sensitive data around applicants. We have to be very mindful of that. Just to be clear, we will issue guidance and develop training to support appropriate data sharing arrangements, and I think that seems to be the best place for that.

Thank you. Our evidence has expressed surprise that the additional preference for homeless households hasn't been necessarily taken into account in terms of the allocation. And I think, from reading past papers, one local authority said there should be a greater statutory duty placed on them to actually prioritise those who are already in temporary accommodation or classed as homeless. I just wanted to get your views on that.

Thank you. On the White Paper consultation, and during that process, many stakeholders made a very strong case as to why giving additional preference to those owed a homelessness duty may have unintended consequences and drive perverse incentives into the system, and, in particular, in the local authority engagement, every authority actually warned against it in that consultation.

I do remain concerned that we ensure homeless households don't languish in temporary accommodation. I am of the view that we have made the right decision not to provide additional preference within the Bill. I think awarding additional preference to those in temporary accommodation could lead to the adverse effect of funnelling people into temporary accommodation who don't need to be there, in order to increase their priority for social housing. It also would negatively impact prevention efforts, and also the use of more effective short-term accommodation, such as staying with a family or friends for a short period of time. I think use of those accommodation types sometimes are actually better for an individual's welfare and well-being.

When designing the allocation scheme, local authorities must award reasonable preference to specific groups, but otherwise have that flexibility in designing and implementing allocation schemes that can respond to their local housing needs. Households who are homeless and in temporary accommodation already fall within the reasonable preference group, and they will be awarded relative prioritisation in the allocation scheme. So, rather than placing incentives in the system to draw people into temporary accommodation, I think we should really focus on moving people who are experiencing homelessness out of temporary accommodation into suitable homes as quickly as we can.

With that mention there about unintended consequences, obviously, the Bill says that allocations have to go through a common housing register. Could you see any unintended consequences there? I know a lot has been mentioned there about social landlords who say, 'Well you know, if this has come in, then it doesn't allow us to rent out maybe privately to them, or even look at, say, exchanges and transfers between accommodation.' I just wanted to get your views on that.

Just on the common housing register, in the drafting of section 160B, which I'm sure you've all got in front of you here, that could well be very broad, and I think that potentially captures accommodation types that are not ordinarily let via a common housing register. I just want to put this on your agenda. I've asked officials to consider whether an amendment to the current drafting would help meet our policy intention. I am minded to clarify that the common housing register will only apply to social housing and that would mean an immediate accommodation. Other forms of accommodation could be offered outside of the common housing register. I think that will build into the existing duty of co-operation under section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 and will apply to people owed a preference under a local housing authority allocation scheme. I think the potential amendment will ensure a common housing register addresses long-term social housing need while allowing for other types of housing tenures to operate outside its framework, and that would exclude transfers and mutual exchanges, which currently operate outside of and are not subject to the allocation rule. So, I have reflected on that part of the common housing register broadness. We will look at that aspect at amendment stage.

Thanks, Chair. I have other questions, but I'm conscious of the time.

That's fine, Joel. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you to your officials for coming in to give evidence today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Diolch.