Indeed, and the Member’s right to raise that very issue. That’s why the Member voted against the housing Act in the last Government, when we were introducing this legislation. He should think back about his actions.

Our research shows how the programme helps to reduce unnecessary demands on the NHS—a significant benefit in its own right. It provides the case for early intervention and prevention, which is inherent in our well-being of future generations Act. For example, for people with substance misuse needs, there is an overall long-term reduction in the use of accident and emergency departments and GP services after receiving support. I’m very keen to pursue the issues around adverse childhood experiences as I believe that this is a long-term solution that impacts particularly on the health service, and mental health services too.

These examples, Deputy Llywydd, show how the programme—and, importantly, their integrated approach with other public services—benefits everybody: the individuals concerned, the NHS and other public services such as local homelessness services. Given increasing pressures on public services, preventing or reducing demand has never been so important. I do hope with sincerity that the Member who has brought this debate to the Chamber today will also recognise through that budget process the challenges that Governments face, and where we can make clever investments such as Supporting People, there is a consequence somewhere else within the budget mechanism. So, we have to be careful where we make our investments. I want to see more and even greater contribution in preventing homelessness—more joint working with other services so people get help when they need it. Whatever the funding arrangements, we must ensure the money makes as much difference as possible for those who need it.

Deputy Llywydd, I recognise the spirit of today’s motion. However, we cannot pre-empt the current budget process or speculate on our overall budget in subsequent years. Members will be only too aware of the continuing and, in some cases, increasing financial pressures bearing down on us. For those reasons I will be asking Members to oppose the motion.

I am pleased, however, that Paul Davies recognises the programme’s significant preventative role in part of his amendments. However, for the same reasons as I alluded to, I will have to oppose amendment 1. I trust that no-one—[Interruption.] Of course, the Member’s free to intervene if the Member wishes.