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.