I certainly concur with the questions earlier about the housing cap. I think that’s a ticking time bomb and something that we have to be campaigning against. But one of the many problems people face when forced into rough sleeping is that, currently, they’re not considered to be in priority need. In the past you’ve rejected phasing out priority need, and defended that decision. And I quote, you’ve stated:

The right balance must be struck between the rights of the applicant and the duties and the burdens that we place on local authorities.’

But as you will know, all the research shows that homelessness itself imposes a bigger cost to public services than preventing homelessness in the first place. Even conservative states in the US have grasped this, and here in the UK, Crisis have modelled the financial impact of homelessness and found that in every scenario, the savings for public services outweighed the cost of preventing homelessness by a magnitude of 3:1 over just one year. And for some scenarios where you assume additional costs, such as frequent arrests and use of mental health services and their facilities, the savings could be as high as 20:1. So, would you, therefore, accept that ending priority need and adopting a housing first policy would save public funding in the long term, and agree to look at this matter again as a matter of urgency?