The next item is the debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report: 'Life on the streets: preventing and tackling rough sleeping in Wales'. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—John Griffiths. 

Motion NDM6736 John Griffiths

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, 'Life on the streets: preventing and tackling rough sleeping in Wales', which was laid in the Table Office on 20 April 2018.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am pleased to open today’s debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report on rough-sleeping. I’d like to thank those who provided evidence to our inquiry, including the staff and volunteers we met at projects in Newport and Cardiff. We were struck by their dedication, compassion and positivity. They told us they never give up on those who need support. It is this perseverance, this stickability, that is crucial. 

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

I’d also like to thank those who shared their first-hand experiences and moving accounts of how they ended up sleeping rough. Many included a catalogue of events that even the most resilient amongst us would struggle to endure. Thankfully, they have been supported off the street and are making plans for the future, and we wish them well.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the heavy snowfall, biting wind and freezing temperatures of last winter brought the life-threatening perils of sleeping out into sharp focus, but our concern must not be dependent on the season. It is time to meet the challenge of preventing and tackling rough-sleeping in Wales. We hope that our report will provide a clear steer on the way forward.

I am pleased that the Welsh Government has responded positively and has accepted, or accepted in principle, 23 out of our 29 recommendations. We would like a clear indication of timescales for their implementation. Some of these seek to build on and strengthen the Government’s action plan and its guidance on housing first, both of which were published when our inquiry was already under way. The report covers a range of areas, but today I will focus on our key recommendations.

Priority need continues to be the subject of much debate. It is difficult to identify a group of people who have greater need of housing than those who are actually living on the streets. Yet, current categories and the way in which they are being applied means that many are simply not receiving the support they so desperately need. This needs to change.

We recommend a phased approached to abolishing priority need. The first step should be to add rough-sleepers as a new category under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. In responding, the Government has told us it is planning to commission independent research to inform any future changes. We would like a clear indication from the Minister of the timeline for this work.

In the event that the Minister would not commit to abolition, we made a series of further proposals aimed at improving statutory protection. We recommended that the Government amends the meaning of 'vulnerable' within the housing Act, and that it reinstates automatic priority need for prison leavers. The Government has rejected both on the basis that it should first await the outcomes of its independent research. But providing a clearer meaning for 'vulnerability' to ensure consistency in decisions across authorities, which we heard is lacking, is not about changing the current approach. We do not believe that strengthening the code of guidance and providing best practice will be enough to achieve this. We received evidence that the removal of automatic status for prison leavers has had a detrimental impact. There is a link between rough-sleeping and reoffending, with all the personal and societal costs that involves. We are therefore disappointed with the Government's position. 

One of the key areas we considered as part of our inquiry was the causes of rough-sleeping. These are wide-ranging and include a combination of structural and personal factors. We focused on the two main structural causes: welfare reform and a lack of affordable housing. Changes to benefit entitlements, the increase in sanctions and the introduction of universal credit are having a profound effect on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, substantially removing the safety net available to those at risk of rough-sleeping. Worryingly, the full effect is yet to be felt in Wales.

We heard that providing greater flexibility over payments could reduce the risk of eviction resulting from rent arrears, and called for the Welsh Government to seek the necessary power. This was rejected on the basis that such flexibility already exists, yet organisations directly involved in the delivery of homelessness services appear not to know of these payment options. So, today, I ask: will the Minister commit to raise awareness with the housing and homelessness sector, and with third sector financial advice services, as a matter of priority?

As well as the lack of affordable housing, we also heard that mental and physical health issues, as well as substance misuse, are common among rough-sleepers. Many have multiple and complex support needs that will not be addressed purely by helping them find accommodation, important though that is. So, joint working between the housing and health sectors is vital. There is a real risk that without it, the move to a housing first model will fail to deliver the results that have been seen elsewhere.

The Welsh Government has accepted our recommendation 17, calling for responsibility for the implementation of its action plan to be shared jointly between the Minister for Housing and Regeneration and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services. However, it also states that the Minister is leading on implementation, but will work with the Cabinet Secretary. This would appear to fall short of what we believe is necessary, and we would seek clarification today.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there are high hopes across the homelessness sector that widespread adoption of the housing first model will bring about valuable change. However, academics expressed strong reservations about using the congregate model, which is included as an option in the Government’s guidance. We seek further assurance from the Minister on this point, and, in particular, concern about any use of converted hostels. 

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, the future of the Supporting People programme grant featured heavily in the evidence we received from those involved in the delivery of services to the homeless community. They remain deeply concerned about the proposed merger of the grant and the impact on rough-sleeping. With the next budget round a matter of months away, we reiterate the need for the Government to set a timeline for publishing the findings of the flexible funding pathfinders and to provide a firm indication of when a final decision will be made. Can the Minister clarify that the findings of the pathfinders will be available ahead of the next budget round?

Dirprwy Lywydd, we do not want to repeat our calls for more decisive action following the publication of the 2019 rough-sleeper count. But let me be clear: this is not about numbers, statistics or trends. It is about improving the lives of the hundreds of people who sleep rough in our communities. It is about the immeasurable human cost of rough-sleeping. It is ensuring that people who find themselves living on the streets are given the support they deserve, the home that they need, and the chance to live, not merely to exist.

I am pleased to be contributing to this debate, after an eye-opening inquiry into rough-sleeping by our committee. The estimate of 300 rough-sleepers across Wales is a worrying one, and I know that a number of towns and cities in particular have seen noticeable rises in their rough-sleeper population over the past few years, with studies showing increases of between 10 and 33 per cent over the past 12 months only.

Work undertaken in England, including bringing forward the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 earlier this year, complements the UK Government's aim of halving rough-sleeping by 2022, and eliminating it altogether by 2027—targets that have been most clear. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary might confirm today whether, further to the recently published two-year rough-sleeping action plan, the Welsh Government have in mind a specific target date for the elimination of rough-sleeping in Wales. Certainly, our inquiry highlighted the need for such ambition, and it was disappointing to note that the Welsh Government has rejected the committee's request for the quarterly report on the rough-sleeping action plan to be published on the Welsh Government's website. The Cabinet Secretary may be able to explain how elected members, third sector organisations and the public are able to fully scrutinise progress on this issue without such data.

I also appreciate the number of recommendations made in this report. A number of which in relation to priority need, though, I have to say, I do not support, as I do not feel that the current model of priority need, under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, should change. I was involved in this Assembly prior to that, when a lot of evidence came forward to the late Cabinet Secretary, when this was coming about, and I actually believe that the fundamental reasons for that priority need status to be there are still there. The Welsh Government have noted the commencement of an independent assessment of priority need, and I do await with interest the findings of this assessment. Ultimately, of course, we would like to be in a position where we do not need to have the priority need classification, when we reach a situation where we are able to house everyone in need in an appropriate setting.

I note the intention of the Welsh Government to introduce a duty to provide an offer of suitable accommodation for all homeless people. Some responders noted financial concerns for local authorities in relation to suggestions for the abolishment of priority need. So, I would like to seek assurances that the designation of such a duty would be supplemented with the appropriate funding and support, for local authorities to be able to carry this out effectively. I know in my own constituency we have actually managed to re-home people who have been rough-sleeping, but, sadly, without a network of support to sustain them throughout, it hasn't always worked, and they've ended up back on the streets. So, I think we do need to look at this in its entirety.

Increasingly over the past few weeks, I have received approaches from people who are, or are in imminent danger of, becoming homeless. The local homelessness team undertake great work once they are contacted by someone, but it is that initial contact, and knowing where to go that people struggle with. There is certainly a way to go in tackling homelessness in Wales, improving accessibility to homeless teams within local authorities, and finding the appropriate financial resourcing for those local authorities.

I fully subscribe to supporting our homeless, our rough-sleepers, but I do solidly believe that it is down to the Welsh Government and our local authorities to work together in a very strong and robust partnership, and it does need to be on an ever-rolling forward programme of monitoring. Thank you.

Thank you for arranging this debate today, and I'd like to thank all the team supporting the committee as well, because I think this was a really important piece of work. And, to put on the record, I think what I found most valuable was talking to people at the various locations that we visited—homeless people who could give us their everyday life experience of living on the streets. There's nothing more valuable to me than hearing how people are struggling to survive, and how we as politicians can change that, if we have the will to do so. I think their eloquence in taking part in this particular inquiry was phenomenal, and I'd like to thank them wholeheartedly for that.

There were differing views on whether or not rough-sleepers were given priority need, as has been exemplified, with some councils stating they would classify those sleeping rough in priority need and other organisations, such as Shelter, stating that, in practice, this wasn't always the case. Related to this is obviously the Pereira test, which is problematic as the meaning of 'vulnerable' isn't being interpreted in the same way or applied consistently.

For the record as well, I was deeply disappointed to see that Janet Finch-Saunders did not support this recommendation. I personally would have believed that the Conservatives would have supported the concept that those living on the streets should be a priority to be given a roof over their heads. We tried to accommodate Members in the report, and I can quote paragraph 64, saying, 

'we believe that a phased approach to abolition provides the most pragmatic way forward. For example, by introducing new categories of priority need, such as rough sleepers'.

So, if she cares as much as she says she does, then I would have thought that a phased approach would have sufficed in that regard. We're not suggesting that it could be done overnight. We know that there would be financial implications, but I think that's as much as we would deserve to do for those people who are currently being defined as not a priority—mostly young men—when they should be just as important as other homeless people.

You would expect me to talk about recommendation 10—devolution of welfare administration—and I was pleased that we got cross-party support, to an extent, on this. We've been crystal clear on this: it's all well and good for politicians to criticise welfare changes as one of the root causes of poverty in society, but when there is no willingness to even attempt to gain control over some of those welfare powers, then it undermines the credibility of the argument entirely. Do we want to complain about welfare changes or do we want to influence and change them? Let's not have empty words about solidarity across the UK in terms of our welfare system either—Scotland and Northern Ireland already have powers over the administration of welfare. The desire to see a unified, UK-wide welfare system is an argument that has already passed. It's a semantic view that does nothing to help people in Wales, living on the streets or in any other difficulty. So, I hope that we can progress this argument and that we can look at this further as a committee. The committee seems to be working positively; I just wish the Welsh Government were listening to that voice as intently as we'd hoped they would.

In relation to housing first, I think it's really, really good that we've set our stall in saying how important housing first is. But, I've had a Twitter conversation this week with Peter Black, a former Assembly Member, who runs the homelessness working group on Swansea council, and he's been asking Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board for months to go in to speak to him to talk about housing first and how they can work together on this. And only because, I believe, we had this Twitter conversation, suddenly ABMU said they would come to the meeting to discuss housing first. It shouldn’t have to take two politicians having a live debate on social media for ABMU to suddenly realise that housing first is part of their problem, or not a problem, but part of the solution to homelessness here in Wales. I think that housing first is a wonderful concept, but we have to get buy-in, not only from the housing sector, but from health, social services and education, so that we can make housing first work. I would urge the Minister to make sure that if this is going to be the future of housing and homelessness prevention here in Wales, we have to be serious, therefore, in getting people around the table.

Just to finish quickly in relation to some of the comments. The Big Issue has noted in evidence that a large proportion of its vendors were European economic area citizens with no recourse to public funds, and this is something that, again, is not currently devolved, but the consequences of this policy and the hostile environment efforts from the UK Government are something that we all should be concerned about.

We need to be solving some of the current issues surrounding the preparedness of social and private rented sector landlords to offer places to homeless and rough-sleepers. Evidence in the report showed that many social landlords did not feel equipped to help rough-sleepers or those with some of the problems that often arise as a result of being on the streets. I could probably talk all day on this issue, but I won't—my time is up—but I think it's really important that we put forward these recommendations and that we make sure that homelessness can come to an end here in Wales, and I think that this committee report has gone a long way to putting this on the political map.

First of all, can I thank the committee for this hugely important report? I'm not a member of the committee myself, but I can see from the amount of work that's gone into producing it and from the significant evidence taken, it's going to be a great help to Welsh Government and I think that Welsh Government's response to it is largely to be welcomed as well.

It's fair to say, I think, that Welsh Government is providing a very clear focus on well-being in our communities and I can think of no more significant contribution to personal well-being than a safe, warm, affordable home—it's the foundation to so many other aspects of life. 

From my limited experience, based on volunteering with the night shelter in Merthyr Tydfil and talking to both the residents and the more experienced volunteers, it’s very clear that the causes and the reasons for homelessness and rough-sleeping, as identified in the inquiry, are varied and complex. Indeed, in many cases, as is highlighted in the report and by other speakers, the housing situation of an individual may reflect a myriad of other chaotic problems within their life. That’s why I wanted to refer specifically to recommendation 17 in the Welsh Government’s response. It is absolutely right that there should be a shared responsibility between health and housing Ministers to tackle rough-sleeping, and the Government’s acceptance of this recommendation is therefore welcome, albeit with the caveat and clarification that’s been sought by the committee Chair, John Griffiths. However, as the Government’s response states, all Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have a shared responsibility to help deliver more progress in reducing rough-sleeping. So, I’d like to hear more from the Minister about the whole-Government approach to the issue. For example, is the Cabinet Secretary for the economy pushing the private sector in Wales to up the contribution that they can make through their corporate social responsibilities? Is the Minister for culture pushing people in the arts sector to engage more with the homelessness sector to use the capacity of the arts and music to reach out to people? In education, is Government alert to those children who are placed at great risk by the lack of a safe, stable home? And similar questions could be put forward to all Government departments, so I await with interest the response to that.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I also wanted to speak on the recommendation 28 and the reference to the Supporting People programme. We know that pathfinders are currently testing the possibility of flexible funding, but, even at this point, like others, I believe, I want to put down a marker. I remain to be convinced that providing some local authorities with extra flexibilities will not carry with it significant risks to what we're trying to achieve, and that is a concern I know is shared by those in the housing sector. For example, in some places, we are already seeing risks to school budgets after the Welsh Government removed ring fencing from education money. In my view, we need to look and learn from those experiences. If the current Supporting People programme can deliver with an even clearer move to improving outcomes then it would be unwise to put that at risk. With ring fencing, we know that all the money allocated will go to that purpose. Some local authorities may even add to it. However, removing the ring fencing—it is clear to me that some councils will respond to their priorities in a different way, and that could undermine all the good work that we're doing in this area.

So, can I once again thank the committee for its report and hope that it will go a significant way towards assisting the Government to deal with an issue that has become a source of shame in Britain today? And let’s hope that, in Wales, we can show that we can do things differently, that we can devote time, energy, resources and commitment to dealing with this distressing and unnecessary blight on the lives of so many vulnerable people in our society today.

Thanks to the committee Chairman for bringing today's debate and also to the people who took part in the inquiry, including the homeless people who took the time to recount their personal experiences to us, which, as Bethan Sayed mentioned, was very illuminating—probably the most illuminating part of the inquiry.

One factor that became clear to me during this interaction was this intimate relationship for many homeless people—of course, not all homeless people—between their homelessness, alcohol and substance misuse, and mental health issues. Although, of course, we can’t characterise these issues as being interrelated for all homeless people, there is a high incidence of these common themes, and that did emerge during the visits—in my case, to the Salvation Army hostel in Bute Street, just down the road from here.

Somebody, during the inquiry, characterised the relationship between these issues as a bit like peeling away layers of an onion, where you peel away the homelessness and you discover, oh yes, there's substance and alcohol misuse. But then you can peel that away and you discover that what's behind that, in many cases, is mental health issues, often caused by adverse childhood experiences. So, these are complex issues that we're dealing with, and it's sometimes difficult to find viable solutions to such complex problems.

Looking at the practicalities that arose from the inquiry, there are certain barriers to rough-sleepers in finding temporary or even emergency accommodation. For instance, the Huggard centre told us that some individuals will find themselves excluded from emergency provision for anti-social behaviour, because this includes substance misuse. So, clearly, if people are misusing substances, it's an addiction, it's going to be something that they're not going to be able to stop instantly, so it's rather difficult when they can't be housed, even under emergency provisions, because that behaviour will be defined as being anti-social behaviour. So, this is one of the practical difficulties that we face. These sorts of things create a barrier to those who are seeking refuge from homelessness.

Given the complex nature of these issues, there's a very clear concern that access to mental health or substance misuse services is of paramount importance. Left untreated, and with long waiting times for some specialist support services, there is a very real danger that some rough-sleepers will find it impossible to break the cycle that leads to life on the streets. So, we do have to look very closely at provision of mental health services.

The committee report did call on the Welsh Government to ensure that the responsibility for implementing the actions was shared, as the committee Chair mentioned in his contribution, between the housing Minister and the health Secretary. We're awaiting what the Government Minister has to say about that today, because the issues of rough-sleeping, together with substance and alcohol misuse and mental health issues, are so interlinked that we do need to have cross-governmental working as the only way in which we can realistically tackle the problem.

We also did call on the Government to publish quarterly reports on the rough-sleeping action plan. We felt that this would ensure transparency and enhance accountability. Unfortunately, the Government didn't agree with us on this specific point and felt that quarterly reports would be overly bureaucratic. Of course, there is a question of resources also. I know that the Welsh Government have committed funding towards their aim of eradicating rough-sleeping, but there's a need for human resources in addition to financial support. For instance, when we visited the Salvation Army hostel, concerns were raised by the staff that there simply weren't enough trained people able to deal with the complex substance misuse and mental health issues faced by the people coming to them who sleep rough. So, we do have to address this shortage if we are serious about dealing with this issue. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome this report. I do believe it seeks to examine some of the areas that currently lead to people sleeping on the streets and see where the policy gaps are. I think it's already had a broad welcome across the sector, so congratulations on that. I think the recommendations are constructive and well thought through, and, as is noted, the legislative framework is a pretty robust one now, and it is aimed at prevention above all. And I think it's fair to say that it's attracted some attention around the UK, so we start with that foundation.

But where there's been a much tougher challenge, I think, is dealing with rough-sleepers, especially those that are already on the streets or on the verge of going onto the street. At that level—and I think it's fair to say that, when a lot of the public think of homelessness, it is rough-sleeping, often, they're thinking about, rather than the broader question of homelessness in its many dimensions. So, this issue of how we actually deal with that end, the really severe end, was clearly a common theme arising from the evidence sessions, as the majority of respondents, including the Wallich, the Salvation Army, the Huggard centre, Cymorth Cymru and Shelter Cymru, all highlighted that the 2014 Act in particular had limited impact on those who were already homeless, particularly rough-sleepers. I note that Dr Peter Mackie of Cardiff University stated, and I quote, that the Act

'had a very positive impact on prevention and alleviation with the broader homeless population.... But, actually, with rough-sleepers, arguably the most vulnerable group of homeless people, it’s not been overly effective.'

And, again, I want to be targeted and moderate in my criticism there, because this is a very, very difficult policy challenge before us and there have been achievements with the Act that we shouldn't gainsay.

Can I just quickly touch on a couple of the more controversial issues, starting with priority need? Amongst some of the recommendations that I would disagree with a little bit is this notion that we should be abolishing priority need. I simply don't see this as a viable option at the moment. As long as homelessness  and rough-sleeping exist, there's going to be a need to balance priorities. Ideally, as my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders said, we would all want to see a scenario where priority need simply didn't exist because we had solved the housing supply problem. But we are not in that situation, and I have to say the local government representations that were made made this very clear and highlighted the financial implications that could be associated with abolishing priority need. It is linked very much to the supply problem and that is going to take quite a while to tackle. Cardiff Council even went as far as to state that, if priority need was abolished, it may increase the number of homeless applicants coming forward, quote,

'rather than people trying to solve their own problems'.

Now, I think that's quite a rigorous view and may even be a harsh view, but there's a balance here. We need to be a little careful about this.

If we look at why people end up homeless, and rough-sleepers at the most severe end, for single men, it is being vulnerable to old age, poor health, followed by leaving prison and the risk of violence or abuse, and, for women, violence and abuse, followed by old age, poor health and being pregnant. I do believe, however, that rough-sleeping should, in nearly all cases, qualify for priority need status, which currently it doesn't. And this is something of a paradox and a challenge, because I'm sure most members of the public would think that, if you're on the street, you are a priority case for housing. So, I think that is something we should confront head on. I note that the Welsh Government's code of guidance argues that rough-sleepers are likely to be vulnerable for some other special reason due to the health and social implications of their situation, but there does seem to be a bit of a difference in practice when you actually look at the evidence. And many, or some anyway—a significant number of—rough-sleepers do not qualify as priority cases. So, I do think these things need very careful examination.

Can I finally move on to Supporting People? This, obviously, has received very high-profile media attention today because of the excellent 'Housing Matters' report that has been produced by a number of organisations in this sector. Now, recommendation 28 of the committee report asks that should the

'Flexible Funding Pathfinders show a reduction in funding for the Supported People Programme, or cast doubt on the sector’s ability to maintain service delivery at existing levels, we recommend that the Supporting People Programme Grant should remain a separate, ring-fenced grant.'

And I do agree with that. I think this is too important an area to disturb at the moment, and the report is clear that the current funding plans present a considerable risk to the support that is available for vulnerable people through homelessness and housing programmes in Wales. So, I do hope the Welsh Government will take care in this public policy area. You can also see from the Public Accounts Committee's report their very considerable concern and the concern right across the sector about what is going to happen to the Supporting People programmes. And, without them, those in the most need of support in their tenancy or on the edge of becoming homeless and rough-sleepers are really in a very, very vulnerable situation. We must protect the funding streams that they rely so much on. Thank you.

I think it's very heart-warming that a lot of Members who weren't on the committee and involved in the inquiry have shown an interest in it, because, obviously, I hope that you've found it useful. It was certainly a very interesting inquiry to be involved in.

I just wanted briefly to pay tribute to a couple of local organisations that I deal with on a regular basis. One is Cardiff Council's homelessness service and the way in which they have trained up at least five people to go out, three nights a week, up until midnight, to talk to people who are living on the streets to ensure that they get an assessment of their needs, because these are people who may not make their way to the homeless service on Dumballs Road. I think that that shows that they really are at the forefront of working with people on this difficult issue.

Secondly, I'm very pleased that the Government has accepted recommendation 24 to encourage all police services to use the video cameras they wear on their uniforms for these difficult conversations with people on the street, because it gives a proper record of the conversation, which can be a very difficult one if somebody's in the middle of a mental health episode or is inebriated, but it's also a fantastic training opportunity for those who are having to deal with what can be very difficult and challenging people who have a multiplicity of needs. So, I think that it's very good that we endeavour to see this good practice extended to all our police forces who are involved in these difficult conversations.

Thirdly, I'm very pleased that the Government has accepted recommendation 4, agreeing to re-establish the prisoner accommodation and resettlement group, because we received very clear evidence that the revolving door is alive and well and that some prisoners are falling through the cracks. The homeless and housing services don't know about people when they're being released in a timely fashion and some of these people are ending up back on the streets and inevitably then end up back in prison, at huge cost to the public purse. So, I think it's great that we endeavour to ensure that that is not happening.

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

Thank you very much. I really do welcome the opportunity to respond to this important debate and I'm very grateful to the committee for their examination of rough-sleeping. As I set out in my evidence to the committee, I do recognise that homelessness takes many forms and the majority of people who are homeless are not on the streets—they're staying with friends, family or in other temporary accommodation following the end of a tenancy or a relationship or as a result of a family dispute. But, I really do welcome the real focus that the committee has put on homelessness in what is its most severe form. Talking to the people who I meet who are rough-sleepers or have had experience of rough-sleeping, I've heard harrowing accounts, as I know the committee has, in terms of family breakdown, domestic violence, mental ill health, financial problems, substance misuse and bereavement. These are all issues that can lead to the loss of a home and spiral, creating a vicious circle of rough-sleeping, which as we know is the most acute form of homelessness.

As the committee report recognises, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 has made a significant difference in preventing homelessness across Wales and has been widely acclaimed for its preventative approach. In the last two years, since it began its implementation, we've prevented more than 14,000 households from becoming homeless, but we do recognise still that much more does need to be done. As we've set out in 'Prosperity for All', it's not acceptable that anyone should be forced to sleep on the streets in a prosperous society. As I set out earlier this year, my concerns are regarding the rise in numbers of people who are sleeping rough. I also set out the commitment of this Government to do all that we can to reverse that trend. I announced in February our action plan to tackle rough-sleeping, together with our housing-first guidance and principles document. The committee's report therefore is an extremely timely document in terms of helping us build the evidence base to inform the evolution and the implementation of that plan. 

My written response to the committee sets out our detailed reply to the 29 recommendations in the report. Whilst there are some differences around the preparatory work required before determining specific actions, the Government has accepted the majority of the committee's recommendations. I've previously set out to this Chamber my willingness to review the approach needed for priority need. As the committee acknowledges, it is important that any change to the current approach is only taken when all the implications of such a change are fully understood. So, I can confirm that we're already in the process of commissioning an independent assessment of the potential impact and unintended consequences of changing the current approach to priority need in order to inform the way forward. This also has implications for local connection. Consideration will also be given to that as part of the independent assessment.

Will the Minister give way? I was interested to hear the Minister mention local connection and also the fact that rough-sleeping numbers have risen, because I think that, in Cardiff, since 2014, the actual number of rough-sleepers has doubled, and obviously the issue of a local connection does come up with a small number of those people. Does she think that, sometimes, the determination of where a person has actually come from does militate against them getting the best help?

I think something that the committee heard evidence on was that the issue of local connection is not addressed in a way that is consistent and coherent across Wales. So, this is something that I'll certainly be ensuring that the independent assessment does take into account in terms of identifying the best way forward there, because I know that there was strong evidence heard by the committee about the way in which that is being applied.

On my recent visit to Scotland, I had the opportunity to visit some third sector providers of homelessness services, and I was exploring with them their experiences of the abolition of priority need in Scotland. That was a really enlightening opportunity to talk to people who have had that experience. We did discuss the impact that it's had on increasing the use of temporary accommodation and once again highlighted the importance of understanding those potential unintended consequences before making changes. Anecdotally, I heard that the population that is staying for long periods in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh, for example, has risen from 200 to over 600, following the abolition of priority need. And, of course, walking around Edinburgh, it was clear to me that the issue of rough-sleeping still is very much a concern and it hasn't been eradicated in the city. My discussions also reinforced the fundamental importance of the availability of good-quality housing in tackling all forms of homelessness. Meeting housing needs regardless of priority is primarily a housing supply issue, and I'm proud of the work that we're doing in Wales on this and the progress that we're making towards our 20,000 affordable homes target.

Another important area that the committee recognised is improving access to the private rented sector, which has seen a significant share of the transitional funding allocated over the last few years to local authorities to increase their supply of private-sector properties available for people who are homeless. For people who rent, issues of affordability, quality and security of tenure are very real, and that's why this Government has placed, and continues to place, a great emphasis on ensuring that the private rented sector is well regulated and well managed. And it is in this way that we can help ensure that it offers a viable long-term solution for people who choose or need to rent in the private rented sector. Just yesterday, Bethan Sayed sponsored an excellent event in the Assembly, where Tai Pawb and the Residential Landlords Association had worked together through the Open Doors project to ensure that there was information and support for landlords to open up the opportunities for the private rented sector to people who they wouldn't necessarily traditionally think of renting to, and that could certainly include homeless people. And Rent Smart Wales will be looking at that project in terms of offering training for landlords.

So, as well as a good-quality home, we also need to ensure that vulnerable individuals have the right support in place, and the committee rightly recognised the benefits of housing-led approaches, such as housing first, which centres on quickly moving people experiencing homelessness into accommodation and then providing additional support and services as required. Key features of that approach are that the service user should have choice and control and that housing is not conditional on support or treatment. The approach is intended for people with the most complex needs, and it might not be suitable for all rough-sleepers. It's one of the range of housing options that may be offered to rough-sleepers, and we know that there is much more work needed in order to increase its use. But, again, I'm really clear that the principles of housing first must be adhered to. It's not about repackaging supported accommodation, it's not about ghettoising people who are rough-sleepers; it's about offering a genuine, new and innovative way to support them.

As the evidence presented to the committee clearly demonstrates, the reasons for rough-sleeping are extremely complex and the solutions are not solely housing focused. Health, social services, community safety and others all have a role to play, and I do take Members' comments about having meaningful engagement from all partners. We're certainly, in Government, working across traditional boundaries to deliver the rough-sleepers action plan, and we are taking a whole-of-Government approach. For example, the Cabinet Secretary for health leads on substance misuse, but in the action plan there there are clear actions regarding homelessness. The same applies again to the mental health delivery plan; there are specific actions in there to take forward on homelessness.

So, to conclude, as a Government, we are investing heavily in tackling all forms of homelessness with an additional £10 million in each of the next two years, plus an additional £10 million for youth homelessness in 2019-20. As I outlined to the Chamber earlier this year, I've deliberately not laid out how every penny will be spent this year. I'm currently reviewing progress and the evidence from the pilots last year and will consider this evidence alongside the research reports, which are due in the summer. I will also continue to work with partners to consider how the action plan needs to evolve and respond to the committee's report and other emerging evidence to ensure the effective delivery of this vital agenda. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the committee to reply to the debate? John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. May I thank Members for their contributions and echo comments already made that it's particularly good to have contributions from Members who are not sitting on our committee?

May I begin, then, with Janet Finch-Saunders and recognise Janet's right to differ on some points, but nonetheless thank Janet for her contribution to the report in general? Of course, it is absolutely right that Members differentiate their views and what they are able or not able to support during the proceedings at committee and have that recorded in the report, and all of us, I'm sure, are grateful for that opportunity at various times on various issues.

One thing that I think is absolutely clear, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that there is quite a broad consensus that recognises the importance of these issues: the plight of people sleeping rough on the streets, the progress that's already been made—and it is substantial—and, as was said, the new housing Act that we have, which is effective in addressing homelessness, but not so effective in terms of rough-sleeping, which is so complex and does present such great challenges. But we must recognise the general progress made, which is very important to prevention, including preventing rough-sleeping, but, I think, again, there is a consensus that more does need to be done by Welsh Government and, of course, a range of partners. And, yes, some of that is about effectively joining up across Government and joining up outside Government across Wales, and it was good to hear some of the examples that the Minister gave of the approach that's taken in Government on those matters. We had recommendations that I mentioned earlier that addressed that need for cross-Government working and joint responsibility, and I'm sure that we'll follow with interest how Welsh Government does take a true cross-cutting approach.

In terms of what Dawn Bowden said, I think it is important that we do see progress from the private sector, from the arts world, from education, as examples of what needs to happen for that cross-cutting approach to be a reality. It is a shared Government responsibility, but also shared by many other players in Wales that have a contribution to make.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I said in my opening remarks that priority need, obviously, is at the heart of the debate in many ways, and that was reflected in some of the contributions that we heard. I also said that it's controversial, as we know, and that too was reflected in some of the contributions that we've heard. We do recognise that there are difficulties, that abolishing priority need isn't something that could happen overnight, and does indeed have a cost, which must be factored into the equation and decision making. So, we do talk about a phased approach to abolishing priority need, recognising that it would need to happen over a period of time, and also that there were other things that could happen to address the issues short of abolition.

I do recognise the Welsh Government has commissioned research and wishes to wait for the outcome of that work before making any decisions, and I can see some strength in that view, but, obviously, we want to see urgent action taken. And, as I say, there are ways in which that action could address some of the issues short of abolition. One of those is the test of vulnerability. David Melding talked about the fact that people sleeping rough would, as a matter of common sense in most people's view, be seen to have priority need that needed to be addressed, but that isn't always the case, as we heard in taking our evidence. But that test of vulnerability that might give priority need to people sleeping rough is actually a harder threshold to cross in Wales than it is in England at the moment, because of case law in England under the Hotak case, as it's known, which puts a new interpretation on their legislation that doesn't apply in Wales. So, we suggest that we adopt, clarify and make clear that we would like to see the definition currently in place in England observed in Wales. So, the comparator for a rough-sleeper would be with an ordinary person if made homeless, not an ordinary actual homeless person. So, that is quite a significant difference that we would like to see adopted here in Wales.

Other matters that were very important to us, I think, were prison leavers, and, obviously, Government isn't minded to restore automatic priority need for those prison leavers. But I was pleased that Jenny Rathbone mentioned what Welsh Government does accept, which is the need to re-establish the working group on accommodation for prison leavers, because we did indeed hear that, often, there isn't timely notice that somebody is about to leave prison. It's particularly difficult when people are serving short sentences. People are coming out of prison without accommodation, and, obviously, they can very quickly fall back into real difficulty, and, indeed, re-offending, which then continues that cycle that we are trying to break.

I see that my time has very quickly elapsed, Dirprwy Lywydd. Could I just say, in closing, echoing what Dawn Bowden said, actually—I think there is a clear public view that it is a source of shame that in the UK, the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world, we still see people in this extreme vulnerability sleeping on our streets, with life expectancy in their late forties. People do feel very strongly that whatever it takes needs to be done. And that's the spirit within which I'd like to see us move forward in Welsh Government and beyond: whatever it takes needs to be done to eradicate rough-sleeping. And as a committee we are determined to return to these matters. We will follow up our recommendations—we will ensure that that necessary action is carefully and strongly scrutinised.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.