Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. We've received apologies from committee member Peter Fox for today's meeting. The meeting is being held in a hybrid format as usual, with committee members and witnesses either here in person or joining us remotely. The public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. The meeting is bilingual and simultaneous translation is available. Are there any declarations of interest from committee members? No. 

We will move on to item 2, our second evidence session on the Welsh Government's Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome here this morning joining us in the committee room Professor Peter Mackie of Cardiff University and joining us virtually Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick of Heriot-Watt University. Thank you both for coming to our committee meeting this morning.

Perhaps I might begin with some initial questions before we turn to other committee members. First of all, I guess a pretty stock question for any proposed legislation: is this Bill needed or might the aims be achieved without the need for this legislation? Peter or Suzanne, who would like to begin?

Should we let Suzanne go first? It's always harder when you're online, isn't it?  

Thanks very much, Chair and Pete. I'd like to start by saying how much I warmly welcome this Bill. I think it's true to the balanced and coherent package that the expert review panel was striving to achieve, so I very much do think that the Bill is required and is very welcome.

As the Chair of the expert review panel, I think one of the points I'd want to emphasise is that, with respect to all of the recommendations that we made for legislation, we systematically considered whether legislation was required or whether the policy intention could be achieved in some other way. So, yes, I do very much think that the legislation is required. In particular, I think legislation is required to dismantle the current barriers that particularly single homeless people face in accessing rehousing help through the legislation.

I also think legislation is particularly required to reorientate practice towards more upstream forms of prevention and also to increase the flow of people out of the system into settled housing via widening the range of rehousing options that are available to local authorities to discharge duty, but also to improve access to social housing. So, yes, in short, I do believe that legislation is required.

Thank you very much. Did you want to add anything to that, Peter? 

I think only to add—what Suzanne said is spot on—that our response to homelessness in Wales, but more broadly across the UK, is so deeply rooted in a legislative response that, inevitably, when you come to make changes and look, for instance, to widen access as one of the key goals, you have to engage with the law; it requires legislative change. So, I'd just say that.

This committee has done quite a lot of work on homelessness, and we previously heard that some local authorities have waiting lists of homeless people waiting to access temporary accommodation. So, if we're already in a situation where some people are owed legal duties in theory but aren't getting those duties in practice, how can we ensure that this proposed legislation is effective?

Shall I come in first on this one, Suzanne, and then you can jump in? I think the first thing to say is that it is worrying that we've got legislation and local authorities feel that they're unable to enact current elements of the law. But what's proposed in terms of the very particular challenge that local authorities are facing around temporary accommodation actually goes quite some way towards supporting them to meet existing legislative duties. There are enhanced prevention duties proposed in the legislation that should reduce the number of people entering temporary accommodation, and there are provisions that improve access to social housing, through the legislation, that should improve exits. So, to the number of people in temporary accommodation, actually, we should see a reduction. I think that's modelled in the financial figures. So, that, I think, is point 1.

The other thing is that, wonderfully, this isn't proposing just legislation alone; it's legislation with the funding that follows some of these additional commitments, and we saw that, I think, in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. This is proposing change, but is really honest about the additional resource that's required to deliver it meaningfully and meet the goals. So, it's not just legislation alone, and I think we'll see a really positive impact. 

Okay. Thank you very much, Peter. Suzanne, anything to add? 

I think I would just reinforce Pete's first point in particular. The way that you decrease the pressures on the temporary accommodation system and the homelessness system generally is by reducing the number of people who have to enter the system in the first place, by doing a lot more on prevention than we're doing at the moment. And, equally, you have to increase the flow of people out of the system into suitable accommodation, and that's precisely what the core package, that was presented by the expert review panel and has found its way into the Bill, is intended to achieve. So, I think that these new provisions, if enacted, will be a major step forward in enabling local authorities to manage those pressures. Clearly, it's very concerning if there are waiting lists for temporary accommodation. That's clearly absolutely unlawful and something that steps have to be taken to address immediately.

Thank you very much. Okay, one further question from me before we turn to other committee members. On the timing of the implementation of the various provisions, is there anything in particular that you'd like to highlight to committee on that front?

Go on, Suzanne. Do you want to go first? 

I think that it's probably for those that are a bit closer to what's happening on the ground in Wales than myself to say what the precise timings ought to be. But I would just make the general point that, I think, it's very important to have timing commitments—explicit timing commitments—for the introduction. And also, the sequencing is important as well, in terms of when the various elements are introduced. So, I'd like to see greater clarity on that.

I would also say that, reflecting on the experience in Scotland, where we took a 10-year period to abolish the priority need criterion, I think that was too long. I think that we could have done it faster than we did. And so, I would also caution about taking too long to implement the legislation. I completely understand that local authorities need time to prepare for some of the provisions, but I would caution against leaving it all too open, because there's always a danger with political change, and so on ,that these things get kicked into the long grass. So, it is something of a concern to me.

Thank you. Peter. 

I'll just add, the expert review group, and us, suggested that there was a phased approach, and again, that reflects learning from the 2014 Act. You have to really go into the weeds of the proposals—I think it's in the financial implications where you find where the phasing is articulated. I love the fact that there was support for other public bodies. There was a real commitment to support, train, enable, and that's exactly where we need the time for the phasing. Priority need in the abolition is proposed to come right at the end, from my understanding, and that's probably the area where I felt that we could probably achieve that sooner, because it's a very small number of households, and we're very, very close to having achieved that. If we're proposing 10 years to extend our assistance to those 276 households a year, Scotland did that for all households across 10 years—well, everybody that wasn't in priority need—so I think we could probably be a bit more ambitious there, but I support the phased approach.

Okay. Thank you very much. Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. Good morning. Just following on from what you were saying there, Peter, I agree with you. When we had the Minister in—I think it was last week or the week before—I think it's 2030 they're looking at ending priority need. And I agree with you—I think it could be brought forward quite a bit, particularly as we know that there are only about eight local authorities in Wales now using that. I think, as is the case with most policy changes, we're hearing from organisations that fully support it and stakeholders that don't support it. You've given your view, Peter; I don't know, Suzanne, whether you wanted to say any more about that.

Sorry, support what?

Removal of the priority need.

Oh, I see. Well, yes, I think it's absolutely essential that priority need is removed in Wales, if you want to move to an inclusive statutory homelessness system that helps you end homelessness in Wales. I mean, as you've just indicated, a lot of Welsh local authorities have moved in that direction already, particularly during and post the COVID pandemic, but the fact remains that single homeless people in Wales do not have, as a matter of law, entitlement to rehousing and people are still shut out of that material assistance because of priority need. It's a rationing device that is used to shut some people out of rehousing assistance altogether. If Wales wants to move to a position where it ends homelessness, you have to end priority need, and Scotland has shown that it is absolutely possible to do so.

Yes, as I say, we've had a mixed bag, really. I remember when we removed priority need for prison leavers, for instance, but we've got some groups, obviously, that still have it, like young people, so we're hearing from stakeholders that they are concerned about that. But, I absolutely agree, and I think the expression ‘rationing device’ is something I will definitely use. The intentional homelessness test, what impact do you think that has on reducing homelessness? 

I wonder if I could, if you wouldn't mind, just quickly come back in on the priority need point, if that's okay.

Of course, Peter, yes, sorry.

Just as a point of clarity, it is confusing, because we talk about priority need and ending priority need, but our journey to ending priority need has been to extend, for most groups, who is considered to be in priority need of assistance. We've been on a journey where we had 5,000 people in 2001 who weren't in priority need to a decade where we enhanced our prevention efforts to where that dropped to 3,000, to now, with just 276 households who are not in priority need. You can look at it two ways: we're either extending it to everybody or we're abolishing priority need tests. What happened with prison leavers is that they were in priority need and we removed that priority need status. That was a step backwards in terms of the journey that Wales has been on. It's hard, because of the way we talk about extending, removing and ending priority need. And on young people there, young people make up 25 per cent of the people who are not in priority need currently, so removing priority need will support more young people. 

On intentionality, I'll just quickly come in, but I think Suzanne's better placed to talk about how that's now being grappled with. Again, we're talking about 90 households a year. It's a very small number of people who are in priority need and intentionally homeless. There is a lot of evidence to talk about the detrimental impacts of that piece of law on those households, conducted here in Wales, so I'm supportive of ending it. It was introduced as a way to stop people deliberately manipulating the system to access social housing, because that's what the original legislation entitled you to do. That's no longer the direct route and what's proposed around deliberate manipulation. Suzanne, do you want to come in, because I know that's an area that you've worked so much on?

Yes, I would. Thanks very much, Peter. If it’s okay, I’d like to go back to the priority need point briefly as well, because I think priority need is confusing in a number of ways, one of which Pete has just highlighted. But I think it's also confusing, as it's almost that the term 'priority need' is a bit of a misnomer, because what it isn’t is a mechanism to generate a priority order in which people receive support. It's a binary mechanism; you're in or you're out, and if you're out then you're shut out of all rehousing assistance. So, I think it's important not to think of priority need as being a prioritisation mechanism; it isn't—it's more like a sort of binary eligibility test. I think removing it so that single homeless people have access to rehousing assistance is absolutely essential.

Moving on to the intentionality point, obviously, Peter has made the point that it's a very small number of people who are actually found to be intentionally homeless—the same is true in other parts of Great Britain—but its impact isn't just on those people who are found to be intentionally homeless. We heard a lot of evidence in the expert review panel, and I've heard it in England and Scotland as well, particularly in England, on the extent to which the intentionality provisions can be used as a threat hanging over people's heads. So, many more people are affected by it than are actually found to be intentionally homeless.

As Peter said, the original intention behind the intentionality provisions, if you look at the Hansard debates when the legislation was passed back in 1977, was very much about controlling what are sometimes called 'perverse incentives' to have yourself accepted as homeless in order to gain unfair advantage and access to social housing. That's what intentionality was intended to deal with. But, over the years, its use has expanded, sometimes in ways that are really quite punitive and often affect the most vulnerable people with complex support needs, who've perhaps done things, engaged in behaviours or made decisions that are ill-advised and have put their housing at risk, but without any plausible sense that they were trying to gain advantage in terms of their access to social housing. But it has these very damaging impacts, and it's used as a threat quite often, I think—and I heard this particularly in Wales—in ways in which I think are quite inappropriate. So, I think it is very important that the test is abolished, even though it looks from the statistics like it affects only a very small number of people, but it has this much wider detrimental impact. It's certainly not a trauma-informed approach.

And if I can say a little bit about the deliberate manipulation test, which is intended to address the original issues, reverting back to the original purpose of intentionality to control any incentive that there might be for people to have themselves accepted as homeless in order to gain unfair advantage and access to social housing, the deliberate manipulation test has been crafted by the expert review panel to be both narrower in its scope and less punitive in its implications. So, people would still have access to homelessness assistance; they simply would lose the reasonable preference that they have in social housing allocations that is as a direct result of their homeless status. If they're entitled to reasonable preference in social housing allocations for other reasons, like to do with their medical conditions or overcrowded situations, then they would still retain that reasonable preference. They would just lose the reasonable preference that's specific to their homeless status. That seems to me a fair and proportionate way to deal with what are, I think, quite legitimate concerns on the part of local authorities that there are some people who may seek to abuse the homelessness system to gain that unfair access. We don't know how many people actually do that in practice, but I do accept and understand where local authorities are coming from and the need to have some kind of leverage to address those concerns. But I think it's a much more focused, balanced and proportionate way of dealing with those issues than the intentionality provisions, in my view.

Thank you. Peter, did you want to say anything about the deliberate manipulation test?

Nothing additional to what Suzanne said.

Nothing additional. Okay. My final question is on your view on the new test that the Bill creates to replace the unreasonable failure to co-operate test.

I'll let Peter, maybe, start on that one.

Yes, okay. I was never a great fan of this when it came in in the first instance, so I was pleased to see in the discussions that the intention was to remove it. I was less pleased to see the new provisions that replace it. Certainly, when you look at the explanatory memorandum, it talks about being more trauma informed in the response, and yet you look at the three new provisions, and they relate to failing to respond to local authority communications and relate to threatening behaviours and damage to property. I think we can all be fairly confident that those sorts of behaviours are exactly the sorts of behaviours that result from, often, past traumas, and they can include traumatic engagements with public services. So, I think, first and foremost, let's be honest that that's not a more trauma-informed response, and then, actually, does it serve the intended purpose? For me, if we pursue those three clauses, we just have to be honest that we're not then able to end homelessness for those households, some of whom are actually showing signs that they're particularly vulnerable. There are alternative responses. Removing a right to housing assistance because of these behaviours—. I would argue there are other mechanisms and other laws that enable you to deal with those behaviours that don't require us to remove assistance to find housing. But I am entirely honest in saying I'm an academic, and I'm not at the front line having to provide these supports; I'm not the one that's having to do it. So that's my position on the proposals. 

Diolch. Suzanne, did you want to say anything, sorry?

Yes, please. I think it's a very tricky one, because clearly these are behaviours that are unacceptable, and it's absolutely right and proper that housing professionals and housing managers are saying it's totally unacceptable that their staff have to put up with those kinds of behaviours. So, I think we're all agreed on that. And the proposals are, I have to say, pretty close to what was recommended by the expert review panel.

But I do take Pete's point, and I reflect on the position in other parts of the public service. Clearly, people do behave in unacceptable ways in A&E departments, in schools and so on. And you don't necessarily lose your entitlement to those services in an absolute way. Certainly there are sanctions, criminal sanctions and other sanctions, for people who behave in an unacceptable way. So perhaps there is just something to think about there, about is there a way of meeting the legitimate demands of people on the front line that they be protected without people losing their entitlements entirely.

I would also make, perhaps, I think what's an important but more specific point, which is, with respect to the property damage provision, I am a bit concerned that, because it's either the applicant or someone who resides with them who may have caused the damage, that could potentially impact on women and others in situations of domestic abuse where there's been an assault and there's been property damage in the course of that. Clearly, it would be unconscionable if women were affected detrimentally because of the actions of their partners, and I'm sure that's not what's intended, but I do think that's an area of detail that has to be looked at. And at the very least, those sorts of situations should be covered under the provisions around reasonable excuse or special circumstances. So, I'd make that very specific point too.

Thank you. 

Okay. Is it Lee?

Can I follow up on what Professor Mackie said about this not being trauma-informed, and whether or not you have any suggestions of what else might be in there instead?

Good question. Academics are really good at pointing out the problems, not so great at the solutions.

There's definitely a trend, yes. 

But bear in mind the 2014 legislation was my proposal, so we do also offer ideas, but we're much better—

You're being far too defensive. [Laughter.]

—at finding the problems, I’m sorry. Look, I think, with this one, and I think it came across initially, my view is we have legislation that deals with problematic behaviours that are normally in the criminal justice sphere. But what I think is that group of people who are exhibiting those behaviours are probably those in greatest need of support, and it's probably a sign that our system of support and the offer just is not suited. The same way if you've got a young person in school, where our mainstream provision isn't working, you have something else that's more tailored, more supportive, and I think that's probably a sign that our kind of provision isn't quite meeting that need. Whereas at the moment we're saying your behaviour means that you shouldn't access this system, we could, perhaps, be saying that we need something more intense that looks like, for instance, housing first, or very intensive supportive accommodation, and it's very quick access to that that would be an alternative.

So, do you think these provisions should be removed, then?

I'm not supportive of those particular clauses. I think if somebody continues not to be in contact, and you're trying and trying, you need a point at which you can say, 'Well, we've exhausted our efforts to help.' But the two provisions that relate to property and violence, I think there's an alternative, and I wouldn't be using those as provisions.

I'm sorry to press you. I think you make a persuasive point. 

I'd remove them, yes. 

You'd remove them altogether?

Yes. 

Okay. Thank you. 

Okay, thank you. Local connection now. We'd be interested in your views of the Welsh Government's thinking in terms of retaining local connection and creating a new local connection to Wales test. Do you support those proposals? 

Can I start on that one?

I'm so pleased that you said you'd start on this one, yes. [Laughter.]

I have to confess, in terms of the local connection to Wales point, I cannot see the purpose in this provision, because I can't see how it changes anything materially from the current legal position. If someone applies—. Presumably, the provisions are a response to concern that people may apply from across the border in England in order to avail themselves of the more inclusive Welsh system, particularly post this Bill being passed, if it's passed. But, as things stand at the moment, if someone from England applies to a Welsh local authority and they don't have a local connection with that Welsh local authority, and they do have local connection with a local authority in England, they can be referred back at the main stage anyway.

This provision, as far as I can see—because it relates I think to section 75—allows Welsh local authorities, if someone does not have a local connection to Wales, not to fulfil the main statutory duty. Well, they can refer those people back to England, anyway. So, I haven't seen a justification for this particular provision that makes sense to me.

So, that's one thing. As I say, I can understand the concern about being overwhelmed by people applying from England, but there is already a mechanism at the main stage to deal with that, which is that you refer people back for the main duty under local connection. So, that is something I just don't understand.

In terms of local connection more generally, there was a lot of debate about this in the expert review panel and strongly held views on both sides, if you like. People, particularly on the local authority side, felt it was very important to retain the local connection test, and colleagues on the voluntary sector side were very concerned about the ways in which it can be applied harshly. I think the expert review panel came up with what was a compromise proposal to extend the exempt categories and to establish clearer guidance on how people could establish a local connection, particularly for groups who have reasons where they have to leave their current or their home areas—LGBTQ+ people, for example.

So, of course, we would have liked to have seen those exemptions in the Bill and they haven't been carried through into the Bill. But I was pleased to see that there are powers for the Welsh Government to make regulations around when someone has established local connection. So, I suppose I'm hopeful that some of the very detailed recommendations that the expert review panel made in this area might be taken forward in the future, because it is a tricky area. I can understand local authority concerns on it, but, equally, we do have a lot of evidence that some very vulnerable people are treated quite harshly, perhaps not deliberately, but the implications are very negative for them of the application of local connection at the moment.

So, I would have liked to have seen more in the Bill, but I am pleased that there are regulatory powers to do more on this in the future.

Suzanne, just on those negative consequences for individuals caught by that test, is that basically around the fact that those people told that they have no local connection, so they're not able to access support and accommodation in a particular local authority, very often, they will not simply go away to an area where they have a local connection, but they will remain in the area and then, basically, I guess have very little support and sleep rough? Is that the basic consequence for many people caught in that situation?

Well, I think there are two things. I think there's certainly that, and there's a lot of evidence of that, that people are told they have to go back to their home area. But if there are good reasons why they can't or won't go back to their home area, particularly if they feel under threat in some way, then that exactly is what happens, and people do sleep rough or find themselves in other completely unacceptable situations rather than go back. But I think there's something else, which is that local connection is often used in ways that are unlawful. I mean, this is anecdotal, but we have a lot of anecdotal evidence of this, not just in Wales; this is across the UK, or across Great Britain, where people—. As a matter of law, local authorities should provide temporary and interim accommodation to people, and they should certainly provide prevention and relief interventions. But, very often, local connection is used as a kind of initial filter, rather than as it ought to be used, which is a reason to refer households at the point of the main homelessness duty. But that's often not what happens; it's used as an initial filter, so they don't get any support at all, rather than being given all of the assistance that they require until such point as the local authority to which they've applied can make that formal referral, which is then accepted by their local authority, their home local authority. But that's often just not how the system works; it's often used as a very initial filter: 'Where are you from? You're not from here, we can't help you.' That's not a Welsh-specific issue, that's an issue with local connection across GB. So, that's the other reason why it can often have very negative impacts as well.

Okay. Thank you very much. Peter.

Nothing to add on local connection. I'm pleased Suzanne raised it, and I joked at the start partly because of that; it was really tricky to understand the reason for the new provisions around the local connection to Wales test, but that could simply be my lack of understanding of that part of the law. It is a complicated piece of legislation, but I couldn't see what it was adding. But others may come in and explain beautifully why it's there.

Right. We'll await that with interest, then. Just sticking with local connection for a minute, I guess one possibility would be to specify on the face of the Bill other categories of persons exempt from the local connection provisions, and then, if there was evidence, subsequently, of that creating unduly negative impacts on local authorities, that could then be changed. Is that sort of approach—? Rather than the regulation-making power to possibly be used to add categories later, would that be better, do you think? 

Yes. I think there's precedent for that all the way through homelessness legislation, and I'm very supportive of that. It does, it allows for that incremental evidence base that says, 'Actually, this is not working', or there's incremental evidence that says, 'We need to extend this, we've got more capacity, more funding, more ability, et cetera.' It's the same with the extension of priority need. Increasing the number of groups on has enabled us to get to the situation where we can now abolish priority need, with a very small number of people. The same for—. Ideally, we'd get to that position with local connection.

Yes, and that would be in line with the expert review panel's recommendations to add additional exempt categories. So, certainly that's what I would support as well. And I think it's worth bearing in mind that the expert review panel's recommendations on this were themselves a bit of a compromise. There certainly would be colleagues that would have liked a longer list of exempt categories than included in our recommendations. So, yes, that would be my preference. But I do understand that there are strong feelings on the part of local authorities and others on this, and it was necessary within the panel to come up with a sort of compromise proposal on this area.

Okay. Thank you very much. Lee Waters.

Thanks. I'd like to ask about the duty to prevent homelessness and the threshold at which that kicks in, extending it from 56 days to six months. Specifically in terms of prison leavers, do you think in practice this is likely to be effective? 

So, in broad principle, I'm very, very supportive of extending 56 days to six months. It aligns with eviction notices, and that was why we had 56 days in the first place. So, the first point is that I'm very supportive of that. With prison leavers, I think whatever we can do to introduce support and planning prior to exits from the secure estate we should be trying to do, because we know that is a route into homelessness. So, enabling local authorities by saying, 'You can provide support and you should provide support prior to exit' and having a six-month period is great. Also, if it was just 56 days, exits from prison can be really quite sudden and abrupt—not unplanned—but 56 days is perhaps too short. So, having that period of six months to at least do preparatory work, I'm very supportive of. Whether you can sit there and hold a property for six months, that's not going to be the case, but you can certainly do the preparatory work with somebody that enables then the hand-holding through the prison gate.

That makes sense in theory, but I'm just wondering in terms of in practice whether or not you think—. It's clearly not as simple as that, 'We hadn't thought about this until now, it's suddenly upon us.' There's not a bunch of extra capacity to be able to do that work; it's not that they don't want to do it now, presumably.

The existing legislation and the existing requirements do expect us to be working in prisons prior to release; we're just extending that time period. So, I don't think it's a major fundamental shift in the prison context.

So, you think it should be fairly straightforward, do you?

Yes. I'm supportive of it.

Okay. And is that a view Professor Fitzpatrick agrees with?

Yes. I would certainly like to reinforce Pete's general endorsement of the proposal to increase the prevention period from 56 days to six months. I think, in some ways, this is probably one of the least controversial recommendations. And also in Scotland, where I've been involved in work around the Housing (Scotland) Bill, where there's a similar provision, it also commands broad cross-sectoral support. So, I think this is an area where there is very strong, if not universal, support for all the reasons that were laid out in the expert review panel and in the White Paper and so on.

With respect to people in prison in particular, there's some detailed recommendations that we made in the expert review panel recognising the specific context of people in prison, and one of them that I was pleased to see taken forward was to bring forward the local connection referral for people in prison to the home area, rather than having it later in the process as it normally is, because you do want that opportunity for people to be assisted well before they're at the prison gates.

They're in a very different context to people that are in the community, and I do think that the arrangements have to be different, and which local authority takes responsibility has to be different. But in terms of Pete's point of principle, we should be working with people in prison, and being given the opportunity to work with them from an earlier point, I think, is valid and makes a lot of sense for prisoners, as it does for other people in the community.

I think there's a lot of work to do on this area in terms of guidance, and also whether we might want to—. I'm thinking more broadly, not just people in prison now, but the whole set of provisions around extending that time period to make sure that those opportunities really are taken to intervene at the earliest possible stage.

One thing I wasn't clear about in reading the explanatory memorandum in the legislation was whether there was a proposal there to extend rights to review to ensure that local authorities are taking the reasonable steps that they're required to do within that six-month period. It wasn't entirely clear to me that rights to review extended to that, and that might be something that's worth thinking about in terms of ensuring that the opportunity to make that earlier intervention is taken advantage of.

I'm not sure I understand that point. Can you say a little bit more about that?

The Bill expands the number of areas in which an applicant can request a right to review, in terms of around the prevention, support and accommodation plans, around the new obligations in terms of support and so on that local authorities have. What wasn't clear to me was whether people could request a review of whether local authorities have actually taken the reasonable steps that are required to prevent homelessness within the six-month period. I understood that one of the questions that the committee has around this is how can we make sure that it's practically put into effect and that local authorities are acting at that earlier point. One way of doing that is to ensure that there's a right to review. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether there was or not, because it may be that it's wrapped up in the rights to review around the PSAP, but I just wondered if that was something at Stage 2 we could look at in a bit more detail.

Thank you. On your earlier point about the recommendations of your panel around prison leavers and bringing forward that local connections conversation earlier in the process, are you satisfied the Government have acted on that?

As far as I can see, I think the Government have acted on that, so I think that seems sensible. In most cases I wouldn't be in favour of local connection being applied at the prevention stage, but I think in the case of prisoners it does make sense.

Okay, and then just briefly, in terms of the duty to help retain suitable accommodation, I presume you broadly welcome that too.

Yes, absolutely, and I think there's a similar provision in Scotland, which has proven, I think, very helpful. It was introduced in 2013. I think my only concern with respect to that provision in the Bill is the 12-month limit that's been put on the access to support, which is not something supported by the expert review panel, including the reconvened expert review panel. It was not supportive of that cap being put on the time period for support, because we know in reality that people can have needs for longer term support or indeed fluctuating support. At the very least I would like to see an amendment such that the 12-month support period can be extended, at least some sort of discretion to extend the 12-month support period in relevant cases. This is something I think that's very important to local authorities and to social housing providers, because their concerns about rehousing homeless people are often around the support requirements, and so I think having at least that flexibility to extend support would be very helpful in reassuring housing providers about accommodating people with more complex needs.

Why do you think the Government have resisted your recommendation on that?

'I don't know' is the answer, but I assume it's probably a resource-related issue. I think, in the end, this is really a measure about preventing repeat homelessness, which, as we know, has great human and financial costs to the public purse, so I think it's really worth looking at this again and seeing whether we can at least have some flexibility on extending that period for people with more complex needs or people who just have those housing support needs. I actually think that's something that would be to the benefit of housing providers as well as to the people themselves.

And presumably you're concerned that if there isn't that flexibility, you're simply storing up more problems in the future, which would be costly.

Exactly, so people might well find themselves back in the statutory homelessness system with all the costs that that incurs. So, this is really a homelessness prevention measure. It's preventing repeat homelessness, and I do think the 12-month limit is a mistake. It's also out of keeping with what we know from Housing First and all the evidence base that's been built up over the last couple of decades on the realities of people's support needs and how they fluctuate. They don't necessarily fit within a set time period, certainly not a set time period like 12 months. So I'm not in favour of that cap.

In a Bill that's meant to prevent homelessness, this is a measure that actually will not do that, and equally Professor Mackie's testimony earlier that a Bill that says it's about being trauma informed isn't doing that either. Is there a fair degree of window dressing going on here?

I certainly don't think there's window dressing. I think this is an excellent Bill, which is hugely progressive and makes massive strides forward in terms of being both trauma-informed and reorientating us towards prevention. I think what I'm flagging here in terms of the 12-month limit is it's not going as far as I would like it to do in terms of prevention. I think there are areas that we could argue could be even more trauma informed, but I think, for example, abolishing the intentionality provision is a massive step forward in terms of being more trauma informed. So, the Bill as a whole, I think, is extremely strong. What we're talking about here are some very specific points where we would perhaps like to see something slightly different. 

I'd have to say the same. Apologies if we come across as nit-picking on the detail. 

The whole point of this is to nit-pick; that's literally the point of this process. 

We're in the detail of the law, but if we step back and give you the big picture, the big picture is that this is an excellent, very progressive piece of legislation.

I just wanted to test that. Your position is clear. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Siân Gwenllian.

Apologies, I thought that I had interpretation switched on and it looks like I have, but that has not been interpreted for me. So, apologies, I can't answer that. 

Peter, did you get—?

Yes.

Do you want to start and perhaps we can address the interpretation issue with Suzanne?

Diolch yn fawr. The question was about the broader range of accommodation options for discharging the main housing duty. Essentially, what we've done, because of the proposals to end priority need, it means that the old section 73 is no longer required. Section 73, the relief duty, incorporated all of this wide range of alternative housing options, and all we're doing, because we've got rid of that section, is aligning that ability to discharge your duties as they existed under the 2014 Act to align with those same provisions, but now under this final duty. So it's, in some ways, just tidying up what already existed before. There already existed an ability to discharge a duty into this wide range of different housing options, and I'm incredibly supportive of that. The legislation is attempting to support people to access the wide range of options within the housing market. It introduces some additional protections. So, for instance, that it is likely to be available for 12 months, et cetera. But I'm supportive of it.

On the potential unintended consequences, there are concerns about who gets what and what sort of provision works for whom, and we've not been great with our data—says the academic. But I would be really keen that we make sure that the data and the collection of data that accompanies these legislative reforms if they go through enable us to look at who is allocated into what sort of housing solution and who ends up, perhaps, coming back into the system or where that fails that lets us then at least monitor whether there are any unintended consequences, for instance certain groups of the population consistently not getting access to social housing or accessing a particular form of the private rented sector. But that would enable us to monitor any potential impacts of this on particular groups. 

Thanks for that, Peter. Suzanne, you will have got the gist of the question from the answer, I'm sure. Are you content with what Peter has said, or is there anything that you would want to add?

I would like to add on this one, and apologies again, I'm sure it's a technological mistake at my end. Apologies that I didn't hear the translation.

I'm very supportive of this proposal. Not only is it a way of expanding the options for local authorities to discharge a duty, which is another way of trying to ease some of those pressures that we all know exist in the system, but it's also a way of making the outcomes more person centred, more outcome focused, because at the moment, the only lawful options to discharge the main homelessness duty are to offer a social or private tenancy, but that isn't always the best option for people.

Thinking of, say, young people who are coming through the system, something like supported lodgings might be more appropriate to their particular circumstances. But also thinking of people who may want to retain their current accommodation but need support to do so, but in a situation where they're already technically statutorily homeless because it's not reasonable for them to remain where they are.

For example, women who are survivors of domestic violence, rather than forcing them and their children to move to a new social home or a new private sector let, it's very often a much more appropriate and less disruptive option to give them the support to remain where they are, excluding the perpetrator, and giving them the security and the support that they need to stay in the family home. So, it gives the authorities more flexibility to be more person centred and to focus on what's the best option for that particular household rather than necessarily assume social housing or private let is the best option.

But I did want to raise just one particular point of detail on this, which is that we suggested in the expert review panel a number of safeguards if these non-standard or non-traditional housing options were made, and some of those have been picked up. I was very pleased to see that applicant consent is required, and also that local authorities will be checking in with people between five and seven months after they attain this new housing to ensure that all is well. But our proposal about people having access to independent advice before they accept a non-traditional option hasn't been taken up, and I think that's something that's worth thinking about, particularly because it's a protection to the local authority from legal challenge. The local authority can be more confident that this is a defensible position—to have offered this non-traditional accommodation, and it really is a genuine consent if that person has had access to independent advice. So, that's one point of detail I'd just like to raise, but, otherwise, I'm very supportive of these proposals.

Suzanne, thanks for that. Just before you go on, Siân Gwenllian, Suzanne, could you switch your interpretation to 'English', if you haven't already done so? It's just a matter of clicking on the 'English' option.

I've done that, so fingers crossed.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch yn fawr. It's a great question, and we don't actually have a certain answer to this one, because this is progressive and it's new. We do have 'ask and act' in the domestic abuse context, and I think that's why there's been a shift—it's explicitly stated that that's why there's been a shift away from the wording that was in the expert review panel report that said 'identify and act'. I take the position that 'identify' is more proactive than to ask, and I also think that to ask is one form of identification, but identification is much broader in its reach in terms of the actions you might take to determine if somebody might be at risk, and then take action.

Now, this is untested—it's my personal position—and I say it because what we know, with so much of the drivers and the risks that sit behind homelessness for the majority of people, is that they're not visible, those risks. For instance, if a young person is at risk of leaving the family home into youth homelessness, it's normally due to some sort of relationship breakdown. And we actually have evidence in Wales that tells us that, for the majority, that doesn't impact on their behaviour in school, that doesn't impact on their attendance, so they're not visibly at risk. And so, if you just have an 'ask and act', you normally ask because there is visibly something that prompted you to ask. Identification would require you to be more proactive—for instance, in the context of schools, to go out and do surveys and other things that we've seen in place to identify who may be at risk. In a setting where it's financial pressures, that identification might look at data that a council has on the debt that somebody has amassed and there are really good examples—for instance, in Maidstone, they have a system that does exactly that and is really effective at predicting who may be at risk and that didn't require them to ask. So, that's why I favour identification, but, again, this hasn't been tested, so it just is my position.

Suzanne, is it semantics, or would it make a difference to use 'identify' rather than 'ask'?

I think, like Peter, I would just say we don't know. I mean, it is untested. I do think 'ask' also, to my mind, implies a proactive approach on the part of public authorities, but I do take Peter's point that there might be ways other than speaking directly to the individual where you could identify a homelessness risk. So, I don't think I've got much more to add on that one.

Suzanne, did you want to come in? Yes.

[Inaudible.]—start, Pete, and I'll—

Go on, Suzanne. Oh, did you say me to start? Okay. Sorry, guys.

Yes, it's disappointing not to have a longer list, but, again, I'll come back and say this is incredibly progressive and a great positive step forward. If we have a list and there are some institutions on it, let's make this happen. I would like to see more institutions on there. I guess the key, fundamental point I'll make is that the institutions that are currently listed—for instance prisons, those sorts of institutions—whilst we talk a lot about people becoming homeless from those institutions, and people disproportionately do become homeless from those institutions, the majority of people do not become homeless through those institutions; they become homeless because of relationship breakdown or financial issues. So, my view is, 'What institutions can we work with who are able to identify people for those reasons?', and, for me, those two main institutions are primary care—your regular interactions with GPs and others—and education, because that is our entire group of young people. So, those two institutions, for me, would make great headway into identifying the folk that we currently aren't identifying.

So, you'd put those two ahead of private landlords?

Good question. Private landlords, I think, are separate. I think a different approach can be taken with private landlords than public bodies. I think, with public bodies, we can take an approach that says, 'We're all in this together.' With private landlords, there are other mechanisms that I think can be fairly easily pursued—when somebody's about to be evicted, that a local authority is notified. That's probably all we need.

I would just like to support what Pete's saying there. I think that GPs and primary care—. I was very disappointed, because I knew they were in the White Paper, to see that group dropped, because that's one of the most important community-based services that people at risk of homelessness are—and it's not just GPs, but those other primary care services—very likely to come into contact with, particularly women with children and so on, who might be at risk of domestic violence as well as homelessness. So, I think it's disappointing to see GPs and primary care not there. I know a lot of colleagues are concerned about schools and education as well.

But I also agree with Pete on the private rented sector. I think the Government's put forward a reasonable case for why private landlords aren't on this list, in that this is really oriented towards public authorities. I think there are also legal issues in terms of judicial review, and so on, as being the kind of sanction, which isn't appropriate to private landlords. It's not to say that private landlords don't have a really important role to play, but there are probably other and better ways to deal with that group.

But I would like to end by saying this is still a fantastic provision. Yes, the list isn't quite as long as we would like it to be, and there are certainly additional bodies. I would also like to have seen the Home Office on it, I would like to have seen the whole of the Department for Work and Pensions, not just Jobcentre Plus. But, starting with this particular list, it's still a massive step forward, and I was very heartened to see the Government declare an intention to add to it over time. So, I think, overall, I would really like to warmly welcome this part of the Bill, but hope that, over time, we can expand it, particularly with respect to primary care and, ideally, schools as well.

Siân—

No, we've reached and, in fact, we've gone beyond our allotted time for this session, Siân, and we have one further—. I wonder whether Laura Anne Jones might be able to roll her questions into one, because, obviously, we've got other witnesses to come in as well. Laura Anne.

Okay. Diolch, Chair. The Welsh Government says the Bill aims to ensure that no young person leaving care has to present as homeless to access that suitable accommodation. Do you think the Bill will achieve this aim? Do you think the Bill also strikes the right balance in its approach to social housing allocations, because some housing associations have voiced concern about the duty on social landlords to not unreasonably refuse a referral from a local authority? What can you tell us about the impact in Scotland of a similar duty that's taking place there? Thanks.

Suzanne, do you want to come in on section 5?

As we're short of time, on the young person's point, I would just say that I'm very strongly in support of what's in the Bill in that respect, so I have no issues there at all. In terms of the new duty on housing associations not to refuse a referral from a local authority without a good reason, I'm very strongly supportive of this. I think it's one of the most important parts of the Bill. I think it's one of the most important ways that we can ease the current pressures on the temporary accommodation system and on the homelessness system more generally. We know that some housing associations do a huge amount in terms of rehousing homeless households, but we also know that the practice is extremely uneven across Wales.

The experience in Scotland is that our equivalent provision, which is called section 5 of the 2001 Act, has really helped to bind housing associations into that co-operation on homelessness. It's very rare indeed for a housing association to refuse a referral of a homeless household in Scotland, far rarer than it is in England, where there isn't any such provision. Whether or not local authorities in Scotland are explicitly using their section 5 powers, or are actually going through nomination agreements, everybody knows that local authorities have that section 5 statutory power, so it really shapes the power dynamic between the local authorities and the housing associations with respect to the rehousing of homeless households. So, I think it's a very important and impactful provision, and I think it's one of the most important aspects of the Bill.

Diolch.

Thank you very much, Suzanne. Peter, are you happy with that?

I'm happy with that. I don't have anything to add.

Da iawn. Diolch yn fawr. Okay. Thank you, both, for giving evidence to committee this morning. It's been very useful. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you.

We'd better go into private.

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.

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.

Okay. Diolch.

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.

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.

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 behavior 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 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? 

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 centered, 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 think, in addition to the legislative proposals, there is also a group that's looking at strengthening the prisoner pathway. So, there's lots going on in the policy and implementation that goes alongside the legislative proposals as well.

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. 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.

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.

I think in terms of the bodies listed, it's fantastic to see some of those on there—health, social services, prison, probation. It's absolutely fantastic. As I said, it's a game changer. The one that we are disappointed about, although maybe not surprised, is the exclusion of primary care. We all understand how primary care works, how they're independent practices and there are GP contracts and service specifications. We understand that it's different, but it's disappointing that they're not willing to be part of the 'ask and act' list. So, I think we would like to see them on there and I think that the concerns that committee members have expressed in scrutiny with the Cabinet Secretary are warranted in terms of, if we're relying on the GP contract, we're relying on service specifications that haven't been resolved yet, and does that really give you confidence that the ambition and outcomes of 'ask and act' will be replicated within those mechanisms? I'm not sure. And also, a point of clarification that you might want to look at as a committee is the definition of 'primary care'. What does that mean? What does it include? You could say that those are contracted independent services, but sometimes the term 'primary care', maybe just verbally in shorthand, is used to describe some other primary and community services that I would expect to be included under this. So, I think that's a point of scrutiny and detail.

I think the other area where we are disappointed is education. I think both with GPs and education, those are the prime locations for early intervention and prevention, where the most contact happens on a day-to-day basis, and we're disappointed to see education not in there. We understand the rationale that there shouldn't be duties on headteachers and principals and that, instead, it should be a legal duty on local education authorities. I’m absolutely in support of that, but I believe that local education authorities should be included in that list. I think the reliance on the Education Act 2002, which makes reference to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, which is what the Welsh Government is suggesting they are relying on, is not strong enough for me. I understand the rationale. I understand their intention. But, for me, I would like to see greater safeguards and I'm not convinced that that is the appropriate mechanism and I would like to see local education authorities on that list.

I would also like to see the police, with whom I believe there are positive discussions ongoing. So, it would be useful to see whether that comes to fruition later on in this legislative process. The Home Office, the whole of the Department for Work and Pensions, but obviously those are reserved areas of policy, so it is challenging. But, yes, game changing in terms of the overall premise. It’s brilliant to see the organisations that are on there, but particular concerns about primary care and education.

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.

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. 

I'm conscious that some of the points you raised about discrimination were relating to failure to co-operate, but I think that's on a separate question, so I'll stop there and come back to that.

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.

So, I think we really welcome the narrowing of failure to co-operate, particularly around the comms. We were disappointed to see criminal law aspects creeping in, particularly on property, and, really, we would want that property element taken out because we don't feel it belongs there. If it's not, then it's going to need some real careful guidance and monitoring, and that issue on domestic abuse being fixed.

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.