Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 5:12 pm on 12 February 2020.
I wasn't a member of the committee during the course of this inquiry, but having read the report subsequently, I'd like to thank my new colleagues for this comprehensive and detailed piece of work. So I'd like to start off by thanking the committee for doing a sterling job and to say that I look forward to playing an active role in future inquiries.
I'd also like to thank all the organisations and individuals who gave evidence during this inquiry. I know that dedicated staff pour their life and souls into trying to help people who have very complex needs; it can be a very difficult job, and I'd like to pay tribute to all those workers and volunteers for their efforts.
The scale of the challenge facing vulnerable people who are at risk of homelessness or who are already homeless is truly daunting. Homelessness is increasing year on year. Wales faces a rough-sleeping emergency, according to the the homelessness action group. The ONS estimates that 34 people died in Wales in 2018 as a result of homelessness. Let's just pause a moment on that point: 34 people died because of homelessness in Wales, our civilised society, in 2018. Who can disagree with the committee's assertion that these are shocking statistics and, in one of the richest economies of the world, unacceptable? Let's remember that homelessness is not inevitable, it's a political choice, given that governments have the power to prevent it. So what's going wrong in Wales, given that there are no fewer than six separate Welsh Government programmes to try to reduce this problem?
Let me quote from the report: rough-sleepers have difficulty accessing substance misuse and mental health services and
'there are currently very limited, if any integrated services for rough sleepers with co-occurring disorders.'
The report goes on to highlight specific systemic problems and offers solutions.
Its first recommendation is that the Welsh Government provides a report on the implementation of the rough-sleeping action plan so that faults within provision can be rectified. The Welsh Government's response: this isn't necessary.
We learn that there is a lack of sharing of good practice where we have pockets of success—the Community Care Collaborative in Wrexham and Housing First programmes in Gwent are given as examples of excellent practice that should be replicated elsewhere.
The Welsh Government does accept the committee's recommendation to improve shared practice and remove the barriers that exist within commissioning systems that can act as a disincentive for people to be able to be honest about initiatives that haven't worked. Yet, what are they actually going to change? Nothing. There's a general consensus that establishing consumption rooms has the potential to protect vulnerable people from dangerous situations. The north Wales police and crime commissioner, Arfon Jones, has been campaigning to be allowed a consumption room pilot scheme in order to see whether positive results that have been seen in other countries can be replicated in Wales. Here is an example of an elected representative seeking to improve people's lives proactively, but he was denied the right by the UK Government that is ideologically opposed to this.
The committee report urges the Welsh Government to look at clarifying whether the devolution settlement enables safe injecting rooms to be set up in Wales, and if it isn't, to demand the power be devolved. Their response was 'no'.
The other recurring theme is a lack of time and resource for staff to be able to adequately deal with the issues they face every day, so let's see an increase in the housing support grant, as has already been said. I have no doubt that the Minister has a real desire to solve these problems, and that she would love to be able to tell this Senedd in a year's time that real progress has been made, but I'm afraid I am sceptical whether she'll be able to do so. As one witness told the inquiry:
'I really hope we're not sat here again in three years having the same conversation, because I suspect we will be.'
So, I would urge her to treat this report with utmost seriousness—I'm sure she does—and to think again about using the considerable levers of Government power that the Government has in order to drive through change with passion and vigour, rather than keeping faith with what witnesses to the committee described as a broken system. Minister, you have the power to effect change, please use it.