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.