People within my region frequently express feelings of living in a divided community, of not being listened to, and of receiving no consultation, other than a letter through the door, before a HMO is unthinkingly permitted on their street. There are serious concerns around strains on infrastructure, the erosion of community cohesion and the opportunistic rogue landlords who feel that the business risks for poorly managing their accommodation are outweighed by the financial returns.

The increasing concentrations of HMOs in south Wales are also in ageing communities, where feelings of disenfranchisement are particularly acute. Older people should feel that their community is a safe place where they can exercise their freedom, not somewhere riven by anti-social behaviour and the sense of trepidation that can stem from HMOs. Objections from residents and councillors are frequently met with the usual response of, 'These aren't material planning concerns.' Our communities need a sufficient mechanism for making sure that they can determine, together, how their community grows and develops.

It also needs to be recognised that the continually growing body of research indicates that HMOs house some of the most vulnerable tenants in our country. In 2020, studies conducted by Professor Steve Iafrati showed that these individuals often have multiple and complex needs, as they have experience of institutional care, the criminal justice system, mental and physical health concerns and homelessness. They typically have limited recourse to other housing options and are constrained to HMOs as housing of last resort.

Those who fall between the gaps in welfare provision can be openly targeted by unscrupulous landlords, whilst local authorities have limited options to house them elsewhere. Because of this, local authorities are becoming increasingly reliant upon HMOs as a quick fix for housing need. Ultimately, this doesn't address root causes so much as it attempts to treat the symptoms.

There are significant accountability deficits and risk gaps blighting the current system. There is a lack of robust oversight and monitoring beyond minimal housing regulation, very little regulation of care, support or supervision for people with complex needs, and no meaningful community voice. It simply won't do to pit community against tenant. Both suffer under the current arrangements, while landlords and local authorities stand to gain.

On this matter, concerns have been raised by a Plaid Cymru colleague following an incident over a HMO in my region. Issues around support to vulnerable people, lengths of stays in what is supposed to be temporary accommodation, planning applications and the concerns of the community have all been reported to him. Unfortunately, there has been a death of a young vulnerable man in a HMO in my region. This matter is still under investigation, but the case has raised a number of questions.

We have to find a balance in supporting communities and homelessness and vulnerable people. HMOs are only a part of the way forward. Much more needs to be done. Just before the Easter recess, my colleague Mabon ap Gwynfor spoke passionately about the need not only to build more homes, but also the need to identify people's needs. I completely agree, and would add that part of the challenge is to ensure that the right homes are built in the right places.

The same logic must be applied to HMOs. There is a vital need to introduce policies that extend to increased democratic community input, against which planning applications can be assessed. A bottom-up, community-led approach to a system of planning would take into account how HMOs can deliver social value, not merely financial value, to their owners.

A framework for taking into account social cohesion would involve communities from the point of pre-application, ensuring that developments respond to local needs and well-being, with community groups and individuals involved at all stages. It would also ensure the creation of more supported HMOs, and private HMOs adopting models of working closely with organisations, local authorities and communities. HMOs in suitable locations, with specific support remits, would improve community-HMO relations drastically.

Alongside community input, policy interventions must consider the internal conditions of HMOs. HMOs tend to be run by individual landlords and small businesses who house people with multiple and complex needs with little to no support. The essential non-profitable nature of care giving and support should not be left to private landlords and businesses. There is an opportunity in Wales to pilot sharing schemes for vulnerable people in housing need. The Sharing Solutions programme, piloted in England by Crisis in 2015, tested several new models for establishing successful and sustainable sharing arrangements. These schemes identified that mitigating risky tenant mixes by finding appropriate matches were a critical component to ensuring that tenants' experiences were positive. The schemes offered tenancy support with pre-tenancy training, peer mentoring and regular visits from allocated support workers. This has implications for replicating such schemes in Wales.

Combining support for tenants and communities in an approach to HMOs outside of existing licensing schemes would be a step towards organising our communities around values of co-operation, membership, care and support. It would facilitate individuals' capacities to create, to direct their own lives within their communities, building democratic ownership over not just where we live, but how we live. Diolch yn fawr.