The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Julie James, and amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies.

The next debate on our agenda this afternoon is a Plaid Cymru debate on housing for the homeless, and I call on Bethan Jenkins to move the motion. 

Motion NDM6621 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Calls on the Welsh Government to abolish 'priority need' within the homelessness system and replace it with a duty to provide accommodation for all homeless people regardless of why they are homeless, as part of a move towards a 'housing first' policy.

Motion moved.

I’d like to say it gives me great pleasure that we are holding this debate today, but, unfortunately, it’s something that we’re not happy to have a debate on, because something like homelessness shouldn’t exist in society, considering the fact that our society is one of the wealthiest in the world. I think homelessness reflects badly on our society, and that we should do more of what is in our power to change the situation with regard to homelessness.

We are having this debate today because we recognise, as a party, that homelessness isn’t something that should be debated only at Christmas when there is a focus on homelessness and when there’s more pressure on services. I think it’s important that we look at the long term to seek policies that will get to grips with the root of this problem—these radical ideas that some of my fellow Members are going to talk about that can change what is a reality for people on a daily basis.

We’ve seen some councils in Wales moving people from the streets, and moving them in a way that’s uncomfortable for many of us. I would say, as Shelter Cymru has said, that people shouldn’t be moved from the streets until there is somewhere they can be placed, somewhere that’s a roof over their head, and not just moving them to another street, perhaps to a street that is less visible where the shops aren’t as attractive, where they are shifting the problem from one place in our society to another place in our society. That’s not the solution to the problem.

Now, we know, of course, that we can’t find all of the solutions here in Wales. There are macroeconomic problems, there are problems with the welfare state, and we have to recognise that Westminster can change this situation to facilitate the solutions to homelessness. Having said that, there are powers here in Wales by which we can change the current system. We can change legislation so that we help the people who are facing homelessness.

I’m sure that many people have heard these statistics, but somebody told me—it was an eye-opening statistic about payslips—that we are only two payslips away from being homeless ourselves. So, all of us here have faced, or are going, perhaps, to face difficult financial situations where we could face homelessness, perhaps because of domestic violence, perhaps because of a financial situation or a change in employment. When we’ve discussed these problems or issues, they’re not just issues that affect other people in society; they affect our families, people we know in our local communities, and people who are close to us as well.

The actions of the Welsh Government to date have been mixed in responding to this growing crisis. Whilst we have seen some solid pieces of preventative and progressive legislation and pots of money announced over the years, there needs to be a more root-and-branch look at how we can change and enhance our policies. For example, as I said yesterday, announcing pots of money just before Christmas is not enough, and announcing vague 10-year plans, which hardly anyone in the homelessness sector seem to know about, let alone AMs, is not actually a credible response to the problem.

A First Minister who goes out and says he's going to end youth homelessness, while at the same time having a proposed budget item that removes the separate and protected funding stream for Supporting People and merges it with non-housing related items, seems like giving with one hand and pulling the rug from under at-risk people with the other. So, we need to decide if Supporting People is a priority, that has to be ring-fenced and protected to this particular aim, or if it's not, then that's something that the Government has to be clear about and has to tell us now.

Plaid Cymru believes that two things are needed as a matter of urgency. Firstly, we need to move to a housing first policy. It has been good to see that there are pilots of this across Wales, and I'd like to see the outcome of those pilots. This isn't a flight of fancy; there are current pilots across the UK in Manchester, Newcastle, London and the midlands. And in the United States, the state of Utah, one of the most reliably Conservative and right-leaning states, has operated Housing First for over a decade. There was a 91 per cent decrease in the number of homeless people in that state between 2005 and 2016, and Housing First was introduced by Government in that state for a simple reason: with budgets under pressure, it made financial sense. We believe there is a clear evidence base now that it would reduce financial commitments related to homelessness here as well, and my colleague Rhun ap Iorwerth, I hope, will be outlining the financial benefits of housing first later on. This is not the only policy that those of us with a progressive political disposition can support. It cuts across party and ideological lines, regardless of the position that you come from when addressing the issue of homelessness.

Secondly, we need to end priority need. We all know the problem. Someone is at real risk of homelessness and that person believes that they may be at risk, but when they go and seek support, they're told that, because they're not a family, because they don't have certain characteristics, they may not be deemed to be a priority for that particular service. And what we're hearing from Shelter, from Crisis and others is that people are now not going to seek help because they're self-analysing as not being a priority—usually young, single men—and then they're getting no support at all. So, I see that there is huge merit in ending this priority need. Again, according to—. I seem to be quoting Shelter—they're not paying me, I should say—but they tell us that it can be done without primary legislation, as the housing Act empowers the Minister to add or remove priority need groups. So, it's something that can be done relatively easily and I'd be willing to listen to see if that's something that you would be thinking of doing or something that we can work with the Government to do.

As I've said, there is no one size that fits all. We have to take each case as it comes before us, whether you've got substance misuse problems, or domestic violence, or whether you've been made redundant. All of these are unique, but we have to treat everybody with the respect that they deserve. And, to have someone deemed a priority and someone else not, I think that's something that sits uncomfortably with those not only in the sector, but who are seeking support from those services as well.

I'm not minded to support the amendment from the Welsh Government, because I don't think it goes as far as what we are saying here today, but I am willing to listen. Everybody in this Chamber recognises it's an important issue, but it's how we prioritise it from here on in and how we can move so that we are not here in a year's time discussing these very issues. So, I look forward to hearing everybody else's contributions here today. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move formally amendment 1 tabled in the name of Julie James.

Amendment 1. Julie James

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the positive impact that the Welsh Government’s statutory framework under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 has had in focusing the homelessness system onto prevention of homelessness and the firm foundation this provides for further action.

2. Recognises the increasing pressures on the system and particular issues for some groups.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to consider abolishing 'priority need' within the homelessness system and replacing it with a duty to provide an offer of suitable accommodation for all homeless people regardless of why they are homeless, as part of a move towards a comprehensive approach to ending homelessness in Wales which includes a ‘housing first’ policy.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Can I call David Melding to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Paul Davies? David.

Amendment 2. Paul Davies

Delete all before 'as part of a move towards a "housing first" policy' and replace with:

'Notes with concern the increase in homelessness in Wales and calls on the Welsh government to establish a cross party commission to agree a homelessness strategy to include ending rough sleeping by 2020,'

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I so move the amendment. Can I start by thanking Plaid Cymru for putting this motion down today? It's a very important subject, and I think it was quite poignant, what Bethan said—that in the run-up to Christmas, it's like one of the annual things that get attention, and, really, we need a much greater ambition than that. I think using your time for a minority party debate on housing and homelessness this afternoon is a good way to do that. I do think, and perhaps it's building on what Bethan said, that there is a lot of consensus in this area about the priority that needs to be given to tackling this very acute problem, but also the fact that it is, potentially, beyond the party political battleground. That's why I think the idea of a commission, an all-party commission, to sit down and to really get to grips with a strategy that could unite us but have a high enough priority in terms of what our objectives are, and also to set a very particular target to eliminate rough-sleeping—. I think a lot of us see homelessness and rough-sleeping—they create slightly different challenges.

Rough-sleeping, I think, is an absolute disgrace—that it goes on. I am of the generation when you could remember it starting, really, as a phenomenon. It's not something that we've had since the second world war, necessarily, and there was a time when there were just one or two people in towns and cities. I think we really need to look at this. It's a very, very deep phenomenon, and it needs some very careful addressing, but I commend the work of the mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, who has, I know, set a target for 2020. That's why it's in our amendment. Others may have a view on that, but I think a commission could look at it, but really starting with rough-sleeping and ending that as soon as possible, and then an ambitious strategy, as well, for homelessness, which will have to be related to a wide range of things, including more social housing. But it is, I think, time to raise the bar and not get into this cycle of an annual discussion around Christmastime, but the problem persists, and it doesn't seem to be going in the direction we want it to in terms of a sustainable solution.

Can I refer to the auditor general's report on homelessness, which was published yesterday? I think it's important that we reflect on that. I know, obviously, the Public Accounts Committee will look at it. It starts by saying that this is a challenging area, and that's why, I think, it needs a cross-party approach, as well. It's not knock-about political stuff, in my view. I think we need to really get beyond that. It is caused by a range of complex and overlapping reasons, and as the auditor general says, it is, and I quote, 

'much more than putting a roof over people's heads'.

It is related to many aspects of someone's life. However, I think we have to be aware that, whilst the change that was brought in with the housing Act to turn towards prevention is widely commended, local authorities are not fulfilling, in a consistent way, their duties under that Act, but also, I think, very concerning, according to the auditor general, the Equality Act 2010, and also the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. So, again, I think it's very important that we've got those important statutes there that should be ensuring that this need is met much more effectively, and I think all parties need to come together to push that agenda. 

I think there were some clear lessons for local authorities as well. The Government can set the legislative framework and the priorities and the budgeting, but it is carried out by local authorities, and housing associations and other key agencies. I think what the auditor general says there is really important: the skills of demand management, the need to provide advice and information. And in fairness to the Government, although Bethan talked about priority categories for homelessness, everyone is entitled to advice and information on housing, and I think many thought that was a key benefit of the legislation. Effective collaboration is key, and also engagement with service users, which is often lacking. 

I'm now out of time, but can I just commend the housing first model? It's certainly something we've looked at, and feel that it's a good way of taking forward—. The idea that you start with a person in a home and you build around that has really been a key breakthrough in some very interesting areas, as Bethan indicated with her example in Utah. So, I think there's much merit in us going down that route as well. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I want to look at the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 and the changes required. David Melding has referred to this legislation already. Certainly, the 2014 legislation includes many positives. For example, it extended the time that individuals can approach local authorities when they are at threat of becoming homeless, from 28 days to 56 days, and it also placed a duty on local authorities to prevent all cases of homelessness. But, as ever, the implementation has proved difficult. Just this week, we heard from the audit office, who came to this conclusion: local authorities are succeeding, to various extents, in responding to these problems caused by homelessness, but there is little focus on preventing the fundamental causes of homelessness. Seventeen of the 22 local authorities said that they found difficulty in transitioning to the new system and were failing to provide training and skills to the staff on this new system. The audit office also came to the conclusion that successful steps by local authorities to prevent homelessness had reduced.

Now, I’m highly aware of specific problems in Bangor, in my own constituency, for example, where an increasing number are sleeping rough—on the mountain, very often. There are steps afoot to find solutions to this increasing problem, and I will be attending a meeting with all appropriate agencies—including local councillors, the local authority, the health board and the third sector—over the next few weeks, to try to seek a solution to that particular situation.

Implementing the Act is one thing, but there are fundamental problems with the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 in terms of its intentions, for example the test in terms of priority need and intentional homelessness. Under this Act, those tests have to be undertaken in terms of assessing whether local authorities have a duty to provide housing to individuals, and the Pereira test, which is unfair, was retained in order to test or prove vulnerability. Not only was it retained in the 2014 Act, it was placed on the face of the legislation, and that means that Wales is the only country in the UK that continues with this status, in which one has to prove that an individual is vulnerable, rather than going through the usual tests for homelessness. So, in reality, one could argue that legislation since 2014 has been regressive. Certainly, these tests aren’t in keeping with the housing first policy that Bethan mentioned.

To make things worse, things didn’t have to be this way, because there was a White Paper in 2012, which came before the legislation, that proposed scrapping these tests. Following what was in the White Paper would have been in keeping with the housing first policy. But, for some reason, the Welsh Government decided not to go down that particular route. If that alternative system had been put in place, rather than rough-sleeping, any homeless individual since 2014 could have sought appropriate temporary accommodation, where there would have been an opportunity to avoid the problems that come with regular rough-sleeping, and long-term solutions could have been found.

Scotland has been taking the most progressive stance in this area. In Scotland, local authorities no longer have to go through those tests that I mentioned earlier, and the 2012 Act in Scotland gives anyone who becomes homeless unintentionally the right to stable accommodation. Therefore, it is clear that we are a long way from where we need to be if we are to tackle homelessness and to truly tackle the issue with real intent and purpose.

I know that the equality committee will be carrying out an inquiry into rough-sleeping, and I very much look forward to participating in that inquiry. We need to move swiftly towards the principles of the housing first policy. Announcing 10-year plans in the media is no way forward at all. Perhaps the hope is that, in making those announcements and publications, no-one would notice that we are almost at the end of the previous 10-year plan. That simply isn’t good enough and I do hope that we can make progress from where we are today to find long-term solutions to this ongoing problem. Thank you.

I very much welcome this debate today, as others have, because homelessness and rough-sleeping are very major issues that have come to the fore in recent times. We have seen some changes in the way that Welsh Government seeks to address the issues, and we need to evaluate those and reflect on what else is necessary if we are to make the progress that I'm sure that we would all like to see.

I think those of us who have stable, secure, good-quality housing as a base to enjoy life from, as a base to sally forth from, in terms of all aspects of life, are very fortunate compared to those who do not have that. It should be a given, really, for all those living in Wales, but sadly, and obviously, that isn't the case. So, it is very, very important, I think, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we do turn our minds increasingly to how we provide that stable, secure good-quality housing for everyone in our country.

A few months ago, I went on the Wallich breakfast run in Newport, which I think was very informative and instructive. They provide hot food, hot drinks, referral on to a range of services for those sleeping rough in various parts of Wales. Obviously, I went around Newport with them. It was very encouraging to see quality of the relationships that they had built with those sleeping rough and the way that they were engaging citizens in general. So, if people saw people on the streets sleeping rough consistently over a few days, they could report that to a website. The Wallich would then make contact and find out what services they could provide to those people—including hot food, hot drink, clothing, shelter in the way of tents, sleeping bags and so on—and refer them on to local general practitioners, who the Wallich had made arrangements with; plus a range of other services, including, of course, trying to move them towards the stable, secure, quality accommodation that would provide long-term solutions. So, that was very instructive, and it was very good to know that organisations like the Wallich were out there doing this very valuable work.

We went around the city centre. There are very many issues there, as I'm sure there are in other parts of Wales, that we read about regularly—people sleeping rough, begging on the streets, the issues that that presents for people in most dire circumstances, but also for the vitality and sustainability of our city centres. 

Will the Member give way?

Absolutely.

I just wondered if the Member had had any feedback on the consultation that Newport City Council is doing now on some kind of dispersal orders for homelessness and to stop homeless sleeping in city centres. That seems to me to be the wrong approach, rather than working with groups of people. Clearly the Member wants to work with them and has done that in his local constituency, but has he got something to say on that, and does he think there is an alternative way of addressing what can be a problem in city centres, both here in Cardiff and in Newport, of course?

It is a problem all over Wales and far beyond Wales, and there's a lively debate going on in Newport, and I'm sure in other parts of Wales, as to what the best approach is. I'm engaging in that debate at the moment. One positive aspect of it, I think, is Newport Now BID, which is an organisation involving lots of the city-centre traders, taking forward a proposal for diverted giving, which I think is very positive in many ways and does involve different agencies. So, that would encourage people to give money to shops taking part in the scheme. They would have posters identifying their participation and that money then would go to agencies who would provide greater support and assistance for those in Newport who are sleeping rough. That is an alternative, then, to giving money directly to the people on the streets, which might actually continue their problems of substance misuse, for example. So, there are imaginative ideas around in Newport, and, as I say, a lively debate going on at the moment.

Dirprwy Lywydd, one other matter I'd like to refer to before my allocated time expires in the Chamber is prison leavers. I know, again, there is a lively debate around this. Changes have taken place in terms of the housing Act that removed automatic priority for prison leavers, and I know that many of the organisations in the sector are very concerned about this. I too am concerned about it because the statistics seem to be showing an increase in rough-sleeping and homelessness for prison leavers. I think we could all easily understand the consequences of that in terms of more crime, more victims of crime, problems for those prison leavers and society in general, and indeed additional costs to the public purse. So, if that is the case, if Welsh Government does agree that there has been or there is that trend, then I would hope very much and expect that Welsh Government will look at that problem and perhaps review what has been done and see how we can address those problems as we go forward, because I think that is a major concern for those organisations, and it certainly is for me also.

I welcome today's Plaid Cymru debate and the opportunity to contribute in it.

Wales is not the richest country on earth, but we are a developed part of the western world, and in one of the largest and richest economies in the world, yet some people are forced to be homeless, and that means that, as a society, we're all failing on one of the basics. That's why we need a lot more compassion on this question.

Ending homelessness has to become a national objective, but incorrect and exaggerated views about homeless people still prevail. I'm sure many of you will recall the First Minister, in response to questioning from Plaid Cymru just before Christmas, when he said it was clear that

'there are some people who have lived on the streets for years, and for some people it seems to be a choice that they make'.

Well, I can't actually remember him saying it at the time, but back in 1988, coincidentally, US President and friend of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, said:

'They make it their own choice for staying out there. There are shelters in virtually every city, and shelters here, and those people still prefer out there on the grates or the lawn to going into one of those shelters'.

Can you spot the similarity?

Shelters play a vital role in stopping rough-sleeping numbers increasing even further, but there are complex reasons why some people don't use them, who choose not to go into shelters. Those reasons range from substance misuse issues, past criminal convictions, to whether animals are allowed in shelters and to whether they have single rooms or communal facilities.

So, how can we tackle this problem of homelessness? We now need to implement what is called the housing first policy. This would give a menu of options for rough-sleepers and homeless people while permanent accommodation is found.

Turning to the measures in place to prevent homelessness, I have long argued that more action and more ambition is needed. A month ago, when I challenged the First Minister on what action he was actually taking, he didn't sound very confident in his answers. It's interesting to note that he didn't mention at that time that he was planning to invest £10 million into youth homelessness—an announcement that was made just a week or so later.

It was good to see that this extra pressure delivered this £10 million investment but, in the scheme of things, it's a tiny sum and it shows distant ambition. No prior consultation happened, to the apparent surprise of the sector. It also apparently ignores the existence of a standing 10-year policy that was supposed to end homelessness by next year. What we need is a strategic plan to end all forms of homelessness. There are other very good programmes out there: larger, more ambitious schemes, where there's been proper consultation evidence, not least the programmes that have already been mentioned by some that are being developed in Manchester.

I want to turn now, though, to the question of homelessness prevention. The value of the Supporting People budget is understood by us here in Plaid Cymru. When successive Labour Welsh Governments have proposed cutting the scheme, Plaid Cymru has stepped in to protect it. It's almost become a tradition now that we've had to do this. The recent budget agreement marks the third time that we have had to intervene to ensure the protection of this valuable funding stream. What does it say that we in Plaid Cymru have had to do this? We've had guarantees as part of that recent budget deal that the Supporting People funding will be protected for the next two years. If evidence emerges of any slippage in that protection, that will be a breach of the budget agreement and, more importantly, a failure of people who are at risk in this country, and those people do not deserve to be failed any further.

There are policy changes that could happen right now that are within the gift of Government. You could end priority need, you could end the Pereira test, you could end intentionality, you could create a general funded duty to provide suitable accommodation, even if that's a suitable shelter while permanent housing is found. Homelessness is a scourge in 2018. It's a growing societal problem, which after almost a decade of austerity needs a new radical approach. The numbers of people sleeping rough on Welsh streets or sofa surfing should shame all of us. Are we shamed enough to do something meaningful about it?

What Plaid Cymru has outlined here today shouldn't sound too radical because it was precisely what was proposed in a Government White Paper back in 2012. We've been talking about this for far too long now; it's time for serious action. 

I'm delighted to take part in this very important debate today and I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing it to our attention. Homelessness in the twenty-first century is morally reprehensible. We have a duty to ensure, with regard to homes being built, that demand meets supply. It's called forward planning. Putting an end to homelessness is one of the key reasons I entered politics. In the prison service, I saw far too many young men who committed a crime simply to have a roof over their heads and hot meals daily. To be arrested for vagrancy is an extended insult to an already unfortunate position that a person finds themselves in. 

Whilst the causes of homelessness are many, the main contributor is lack of housing. We are not building enough new homes, particularly affordable and social housing. Experts predict that we need to build 12,000 new homes each year. Sadly, only half that number is being built. This lack of housing has resulted in 2,652 households becoming homeless between April and June last year, and saw nearly an additional 2,000 threatened with becoming homeless within eight weeks.

There are around 2,000 houses in temporary accommodation and over 200 of those in bed and breakfasts. Thirteen per cent of those in bed and breakfast were families with children, and this is totally unacceptable. These families need homes urgently, yet there is not enough social housing or affordable housing to meet that need. The Welsh—

Will you take an intervention? 

Yes. 

Thank you very much. You've outlined the lack of social housing that's available. Can you see that one of the problems in creating that lack of social housing is the right to buy scheme, and do you oppose the right to buy scheme for that reason? 

I think that when there was a right to buy scheme, I think the money that was taken from the right to buy scheme should have been reinvested in social housing. 

These families need homes urgently, yet there is not enough social housing to meet that need. The Welsh Government has a target to build around 4,000 affordable homes a year, yet only three quarters of that amount were built last year and they're relying on the private sector to build over a third of affordable housing in Wales via section 106 agreements. Private developers tell us that they are hampered from building more homes due to red tape and an overly bureaucratic planning system. They also state that there is an inadequate supply of land, and additional costs as a result of building regulations and the methods required to build on new developments.

Simply put, Wales is a less desirable place to build houses. This has to change if we are to end homelessness. In England, the Government have started looking at prefabricated housing to resolve this extremely important issue. It is a quick and cheap solution to addressing housing shortages. It was the use of prefabs that helped address housing shortages after the war. Modern, modular, prefabricated housing is far more advanced than the prefabs of the past. They can be built on brownfield sites, subject to securing the right surveys of that land. They can be converted from eco-friendly materials and are highly energy-efficient, saving home owners money on electricity and heating costs. They are flexible and can be tailored to the needs of the home owner, and some types of modular homes can be reconfigured to meet future needs. A two-bedroomed home can be built for around £50,000 and can be installed in days. What are we waiting for? Flat-pack homes and brownfield sites are the answer.

As a person passionate about my country, I would not be representing Wales or the people in it or the homeless people if I did not highlight the following real-life situation. A gentleman in Swansea spoke to me about his urgent situation. He and his wife, aged 63, were living in a car. He had been made redundant and given a small amount of money—not enough to pay his mortgage off. They lived off the proceeds of his redundancy and inquired about social housing. He applied for around 120 jobs. Nothing came to fruition. He sold his house, but there was no profit, and at the end of it he could not obtain social housing. He explained that they were left to live in a car and his wife had osteoporosis. 'We have been left behind', he said. 'Our taxes we willingly gave, but in our time of need we received nothing. We were left to live and die in our car.' 

Also, a person leaving prison with no place to go only helps them to go back into the community that they came from, and perhaps reoffend. Listening to this, there has to be a priority. Only when we eradicate homelessness in Wales and treat people such as our armed forces veterans with respect and houses upon their return can we then truly say that we can hold our heads high. Thank you.    

We all in this Chamber are involved in the work of developing policy. Perhaps there is an ambition, perhaps there is a problem that we are trying to solve, perhaps we'll find a solution sometimes, but the question, 'Yes, but how much does it cost?', is an inevitable question to be asked and, often, I'm afraid it's asked as a way to prevent the implementation of new policy perhaps. But, yes, there is a cost related to most things. Most policy areas include some kind of balance between additional costs and how much will be saved, and it’s about looking at all options. That’s what’s important. And that, of course, includes looking at the cost of doing nothing. And that’s certainly true in the area of homelessness.

Homelessness costs billions of pounds to public services. Housing benefit that's paid for temporary accommodation costs around £2 billion in the United Kingdom annually. Some argue that that figure in itself would be enough to pay for permanent accommodation for those who have to sleep rough at present. Now, there are costs also for the NHS and social services, the justice system, the administration costs for local authorities and all kinds of other institutions that have to deal with the results of homelessness.

And then there are the indirect costs of failure to reach potential, educational potential, and the loss of income through taxation as people lose their jobs, with the costs for local businesses who find that their towns are unattractive because of a lack of support for those sleeping rough. The costs fall across so many areas.

Instead of asking how much measures to address homelessness cost, we should be asking how much does homelessness itself cost. All the research, all the financial modelling that’s been done on this, comes up with pretty stark conclusions. It is always cheaper to prevent homelessness than to let it happen. It is always cheaper to rapidly resolve homelessness than to let it persist. The longer somebody is homeless, the more costs rise and support needs become higher. It’s usually cheaper to house and provide support for the most problematic individuals—you know, the stereotypical drug addict with complex needs—than it is to leave them to sleep rough.

The research on this has been very extensive, so much so that the United States—a country not known perhaps for its generous social safety net—has come to the conclusion that supporting Housing First projects is the way forward, bearing in mind that the health-related costs of homelessness are lower in the US, because the entitlements to healthcare for those without insurance are much lower. But this was illustrated very well by the author Malcolm Gladwell, who told the story of one homeless person, Murray, about whom local police were quoted as saying,

‘It costs us one million dollars not to do something about Murray.’

He came to the conclusion that giving homeless people apartments and support was cheaper than not housing people. There are academic studies to back that up. A study by the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program tracked 119 of their chronically homeless clients and found that each of them was taken to the emergency room, on average, 36 times per year.

Closer to home, Crisis modelled four scenarios and calculated the costs of resolving each case versus the costs of not resolving them and letting somebody become homeless. In each of those cases, the savings for preventing or rapidly resolving homelessness outweighed the costs of letting it happen by a minimum of 3:1 and up to as much as 14:1.

The financial benefits of preventing homelessness will be spread across the public sector, but it is important to point out that whilst local government shares in those savings, the initial financial outlay on preventing and rapidly resolving homelessness actually largely does fall on local authorities and the social security system. So, we have to acknowledge that local authorities must be supported to prevent homelessness. I’m afraid that cutting their budgets won’t work; that’s why, for example, Plaid Cymru, as we heard from Leanne Wood, has prioritised the Supporting People grant in budget negotiations on three separate occasions.

Will you give way?

Certainly.

Do you share my concern that, on 24 October, the Welsh Government wrote to the local authority chief executives, saying they will be funding flexibility on Supporting People, with seven given 100 per cent funding flexibility and the remainder given 15 per cent funding flexibility? So, as things stand, if the budget goes through as proposed, there is no ring fence.

Certainly, I am very aware of the concern in the sector now about how that protected money can be used by them. Now it’s up to Government to show that it is listening to that sector in giving them the flexibility to spend the money as they wish.

I will conclude. Enough really is enough. Let’s not let the human tragedy of rough-sleeping happen simply because different layers of government can’t work together. It can’t be right to simply let the taxpayer pick up the costs of homelessness simply because those costs are spread across the public sector. The principle of Housing First offers a way forward, I think. We're reminded time and time again that in these austere times, our spending options are limited. Well, in times this tough, we can’t afford not to take action on homelessness, precisely because homelessness itself costs too much.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. And thanks very much to Plaid Cymru for raising these important issues, because I do believe that there is a lot of cross-party consensus on these particular issues. I'm very pleased to support the amendment in the name of Julie James, which does call on the Welsh Government to consider abolishing priority need, and also to move towards a comprehensive approach to ending homelessness, which includes a housing first policy. So, I think there is a great deal of consensus, really, about the way that we should actually be going.

I think we should commend the Welsh Government on its efforts to tackle homelessness in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, because I think it has made a difference. We've obviously got the audit report now to look at in detail to see what the actual effects are, but I think, in some local authorities, there have been real concrete results in being able to get in there early and work to prevent homelessness. 

I also welcome the fact that the Government has protected the Supporting People grant, because as we all know and as we have referred to in this debate, people who are homeless do have complex needs, which cover much more than just having a roof over their heads, but you have to start off with a roof, which is why we would want to support the housing first policy. I also welcome the extra £2.6 million, which will help to tackle rough-sleeping, youth homelessness and mental health and homelessness, as well as increasing capital funding for emergency night provision capacity for Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham and Swansea.

However, I think it is very important that we do debate what is appropriate emergency provision, and Leanne covered this in her speech. Certainly in Cardiff, there appears to have been a big increase in street homelessness. But Lynda Thorne, the cabinet member for housing in Cardiff council, on 29 December, sent out a message that 60 places were available for rough-sleepers on one particular night and only six were taken. So, I think what this does illustrate are the reasons why many people who are sleeping rough do feel unable to take up places in shelters and in emergency accommodation, because of fears of substance misuse, I think. Leanne mentioned the issue about animals and, if you're with a partner, what sort of accommodation is offered. I think there are a huge number of reasons why people sometimes feel unable to take up the opportunity of a shelter. So, I really think that we do need a debate on how we provide appropriate accommodation for all those people who are on the street.

To move on to the priority list and those people who are classed as being a priority need, obviously this includes people who have dependent children, pregnant women, older people, disabled people, 16 and 17-year-olds, 18 to 21-year-old care leavers and many others. I also want to mention the issue of prisoners, which John Griffiths mentioned in his speech, because ex-prisoners with a local connection to the area and who are vulnerable as a result of being an ex-prisoner are the criteria for ex-prisoners. Of course, during the last Assembly term, we did actually change this and I think it is really a matter of great concern that there appears to have been a bad outcome for prisoners as a result of not being automatically a priority need. I'm sure many of us saw the Estyn report into Swansea prison, which was published a couple of weeks ago, which found that half of the prisoners being released are not being sent to sustainable accommodation. The report says that, in their judgment, the outcomes for prisoners in the area of resettlement have sunk to 'poor', which is the lowest possible, and it did say that the Welsh Assembly's policy of not giving priority on housing lists to prisoners on release may have contributed to this result.

So, I think it's really important that we do look again at the issue of prisoners. I don't know if the Government has got any research that it has done itself that shows that efforts to rehouse prisoners, although they're not a priority in the way they were, have resulted in some success, but certainly the evidence appears to be that this has not been a successful change in policy. So, I would ask the Government if it would look at that again, and I think that we should move to a situation where we are looking for housing first and that we should not have priority categories any more.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans?

Thank you, and I very much welcome this debate today. We clearly all want to end homelessness, and we do know that prevention is the best way in which to achieve this. I think that Rhun ap Iorwerth really shared some strong evidence as to why the preventative approach as a priority does make sense. Our progressive approach focused on prevention has achieved a lot, but we are confronted with rising demand, in large part, I have to say, as a result of the UK Government's welfare reforms. We know that more and more people are turning to local authorities for help, and we have all seen the worrying rise in the number of people forced to sleep on our streets.

The groundbreaking legislation in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 introduced duties to help prevent and relieve homelessness. And there can be no argument that it has had a dramatic impact. By the end of September, 12,912 people had been helped to avoid homelessness. It's important to recognise that, under our legislation, priority need no longer applies when people are seeking help if they are at risk of homelessness. The homelessness prevention duties, which require local authorities to find housing solutions, apply to everybody equally.

I'd also emphasise that rough-sleeping is only one aspect of homelessness, albeit the most visible. According to some estimates, for every one person sleeping rough on our streets, there might be as many as 30 or more people who are otherwise homeless, in temporary accommodation or sofa surfing. It's important that any decisions take account of the need to ensure that there is sufficient temporary accommodation of an adequate standard. Our legislation seeks a long-term and sustainable change, and we're supporting housing advice services to work holistically to help find solutions to housing need.

As yesterday's Wales Audit Office report 'How Local Government manages demand—Homelessness' recognises, this kind of cultural change doesn't happen overnight, and I am grateful to David Melding for outlining the key findings and the recommendations of that report, which I will be discussing with the Welsh Local Government Association.

There is a whole host of complex reasons why people sleep rough, and they usually involve a combination of personal and structural factors, which we've heard about in this debate. I would like to confirm to Members that we are driving forward our support for housing first, which will be a key element of our policy to reduce rough-sleeping. Following a policy conference, which Welsh Government sponsored with Cardiff University last April, we're funding a number of housing first services. These are supported by a network co-ordinated by Cymorth. We'll commission an independent evaluation of this work later this year.

This spring, I will receive reports from the research that we're funding on the impact of Part 2 of the housing Act. I will also receive a report from Shelter Cymru on research into the experiences of rough-sleepers, and this will provide us with evidence on how we can improve outcomes for people who are vulnerable.

Tackling homelessness is a priority for this Government, and we are backing our policy with funding, including an additional £2.6 million within this year. Our budget for the next two years includes an additional £10 million for homelessness in each year, and this places £6 million a year into the local government revenue settlement, and I expect this funding to strengthen statutory prevention services.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

One of the most important vehicles for preventing homelessness is the Supporting People budget, and you will have heard from people in the sector about their concerns about losing the ring fencing of that budget. Will you now today acknowledge those concerns and agree to continue with the ring fencing, and also will you agree to ensure that there's a separate budget line for the Supporting People funding so that it can be tracked, where it goes in the future?

Well, I think that there is a clear case for creating larger, more flexible funding streams that cut down on bureaucracy and support more strategic programme alignments to meet local needs, but, equally, I have to say that it is really important to recognise that no final decision has been taken. We do have the Pathfinder projects, which are looking at what that larger grant might look like in practice, and there is also the funding flexibility that Mark Isherwood referred to in other areas. What I will say is that I will make a decision when we have the results from the pathfinder project, and I won't be pushed into making a decision until I have the evidence before me and I am able to assess what's important. What's important to me is outcomes for vulnerable people.

The other £4 million will enable our homelessness prevention grant programme to build on the progress made to date, and, as we've discussed in this debate already, there'll be a further £10 million in 2019-20 for youth homelessness. This will back up our commitment to work with the End Youth Homelessness campaign. And I will say, in terms of how that money will be spent, there was a meeting between officials and stakeholders from the voluntary sector and local government this morning that gathered some very early views on how that funding might be spent, because of course it is funding for 2019-20. There were several ideas that came forward as a result of that meeting today, but I'm equally keen to listen personally to the views of young homeless people, as I did recently when I visited the Swansea youth homelessness project. So, I'm listening to good ideas wherever they will come from, and I know that Members within this Chamber will also have ideas as to what we must do to end youth homelessness. So, I'll be announcing further plans for my homelessness policy in early February, when I intend to make an oral statement, and I will give this Chamber my commitment that tackling homelessness is going to be a year-round priority for me, not just something that we talk about at Christmas, as has been said a couple of times in this debate. I would expect Members to hold me to that.

We continue to support front-line services, including outreach, night shelters, bond schemes, family mediation and housing advice, and, as I've said, we have sustained our investment in Supporting People because we do recognise the importance of it in preventing homelessness. We're investing record levels of funding in this term: £1.3 billion to support the housing sector and the additional 20,000 affordable homes that we will deliver, our increases in house building and ending the right to buy, investing in innovative housing, which meets some of the areas described by Caroline Jones in her contribution, and also working with the private rented sector will all help ensure that households have access to secure, quality housing right across the different types of tenures.

So, I think it's right that we can be proud of our progress, but we also recognise its limits, and we must now look at how we can provide further protection for those in need. That's why I welcome today's motion on priority need. I have real sympathy for its intention and I agree with the intention. I have proposed an amendment that commits to a full review of priority need because I do want to understand the implications and test for any unintended consequences, and this work will take full account of the potential benefits for vulnerable people as well as how any change could be managed within a realistic assessment of the available resources. Officials will be exploring the issue with their counterparts in Scotland and also with our local authorities here in Wales.

I don't support the Conservative amendment, although I do recognise the consensus that there has been on this issue in the Chamber today and on other occasions. The reason is the all-party commission would, I think, delay the work that the Welsh Government already has in hand. For example, we're already developing a national rough-sleeping action plan based on work with partners, and I intend to say more on this in the very near future.

Our commitment to tackling homelessness is underpinned by substantial funding and multi-agency, cross-sector expertise. Really, this practical partnership approach is the best way to drive forward the work that we all agree needs to be done. But, in the meantime, I would urge the Conservatives to join us in pressing the UK Government to halt the welfare changes that we know are driving much of the increase in homelessness.

Thank you very much. Can I call on Bethan Jenkins to reply to the debate?

Thank you, and thank you, everybody, for contributing. I thought it was a thoughtful and interesting debate. I'll start with what I agree with: what the Minister said in relation to the commission. I do agree that any delay in implementing future work on this area would not be necessary, and, hearing what David Melding said in relation to housing first, why not just crack on in that regard? We do have a lot of commissions and lots of places to talk in Wales, and I think it's about putting these ideas into action now. So, it was pleasing to hear your support in that regard.

What I didn't hear very convincingly from the Minister, I'm afraid, is the issue with regard to ring-fencing of Supporting People. We heard Leanne Wood intervene and ask you whether you had decided to ring-fence. You were pushed for clarity but you still have not made up your mind. And I think that those in the sector and us on these benches would be concerned about that, because from where I sit—or stand at the moment—that is why we agreed to that budget agreement, knowing that the sector had specifically said that we need to ring-fence that money. We can talk about effectiveness of programmes and such, but ring-fencing that makes sense in relation to how we can ensure that that money goes to the right places. We know from experiences elsewhere that, if it's put into a general budget, it may be used in other places, and it may then—I've got the Welsh word in my brain, glastwreiddio—it may diminish the effect of the policy intention. So, we will have to pursue this once again, I'm afraid. 

I hear what David Melding said in relation to the auditor general's report and that it is a challenging area, and I think it's for us all to read that report and to take those complex and overlapping issues into regard, especially in relation to the future generations Act. 

With regard to the contribution from Siân Gwenllian, I'm pleased that there will be a meeting in Gwynedd to look at some of these solutions in relation to rough-sleeping. It shows that we're taking a proactive approach, that you as a local Assembly Member are trying to tackle that head-on. 

In relation to what was said by John Griffiths, I never doubt your commitment to this issue and I'm pleased that the committee will be looking into rough-sleeping, but I do take note of what Simon Thomas said in relation to his intervention and the way in which Newport City Council could potentially disperse homeless people in the centre of Newport. You will know that Jeremy Corbyn was only attacking the Tory council for doing the very same very recently, so perhaps we should have a consistent approach. If this is going to happen then it's a bad thing to happen wherever it takes place and should be condemned as such in that regard. And I've taken part in some of those experiences, and I think some of those innovative practices that are put forward by Wallich are something that we should take on board much more seriously. 

Again, Leanne talked about housing first and the menu of options that that can provide, and Supporting People and the interventions that we've made as a party—the third time we've made an intervention to try and ensure that that money is ring-fenced. And I'm sure we will be saying that time and time again.  

Caroline Jones mentioned prisoners and former prisoners, as did Julie Morgan, and I think it's important that we remove the priority need for that very reason. We need to ensure that where people fall out of priority need that they too can have the support that they require in our society. Julie Morgan also mentioned, I think, a text that one of the Labour councillors sent out to people about Shelter. I'm just wondering how many people maybe couldn't access that because they didn't have the appropriate technology, was it sent out by a phone, and how can that be done differently in future. I don't want to make it too party political, but what I did read at the time was that one councillor was telling people not to protest but to get involved in charitable campaigning. Well, I don't think it's an either/or in relation to homelessness. If people want to protest because these issues are something that is passionate for them, then they should be able to do that, as well as help Shelter and Wallich and whatever other organisation is out there. And I don't think it was a very helpful comment to have made at that time. 

Rhun obviously talked about the costs, and I think was very eloquent in saying about the fact that the cost implications of homelessness far outweigh the benefits, so we need to put the preventative practices and preventative actions in place so that it will cost less in the long term, and using those examples not only from America but from home shows us that that can be done. 

I think that what we've got here today is a commitment by everybody to show that this is a priority, but we need to put that work into practice collectively, and I hope that's something that we can do across the board. What I think we need to consider also is how we engage with those people who are actually rough-sleeping at the moment, and who are on our streets at the moment. I was in Cardiff the other week and I gave some food to a homeless person, and, as soon as I gave it to him, a policeman came and moved him away from the shopping centre in question. I think, if we're going to move them away, we need to ensure that we know where they're going, and they're not going to somewhere that could be potentially more harmful for them in the long term. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, I defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Okay, that's fine.