The first group of amendments relate to prevention. The lead Amendment in the group is amendment 32. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. 

Amendment 32 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to thank all those who've co-operated with me in developing the amendments being brought before you this afternoon. Special thanks must go to Mostyn in my office, both the clerking and legal teams, and especially Crisis, Shelter Cymru and Cymorth Cymru. In fact, all four amendments in my name in this group are supported by Crisis, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, End Youth Homelessness Cymru, Llamau, Tai Pawb, the Wallich and the Bridgeman Community Foundation.

In terms of amendments 34 and 35, they address the fact that there is an omission of a right to review the reasonable steps taken during the prevention duty. My understanding is that, under the current drafting of the Bill, a person will only gain the right to request a review of the reasonable steps taken under the prevention duty once the prevention duty has come to an end. Simply, that means that the right to review will only happen once the person has lost their home and is homeless. In light of the evidence given on this point during Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill, I don't believe that this is the Welsh Government's intention.

As such, my amendments would rectify this by enabling an applicant who felt that reasonable steps had not been taken to prevent their homelessness to request a review during the six-month prevention duty. Amendment 32 strengthens amendments 34 and 35, because it clarifies that local authorities must keep records of the reasonable steps taken during the prevention duty. This is a simple but important administrative amendment to ensure fairness and transparency. For a review to take place in a fair manner, it is crucial that a record of the steps taken is held by the local authority.

Amendment 33, which I'm pleased to see is formally being supported by Joel James and the Welsh Conservative group, requires that, when determining if accommodation is suitable for a person, a local housing authority must have regard to any assessment of a person's case carried out in accordance with section 62 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Why is that needed? Recent case law found that the failure to carry out the assessment did not invalidate the suitability decision, and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Without these amendments, the Bill would enable such a situation to arise here in Wales. This is completely contrary to the aim of this legislation, which is to create a sustainable system that is centred around the individual. I raised this point with the Cwnsler Cyffredinol last week. She disagreed with the need to amend the legislation, saying that the case law, in fact, and I quote,

'strengthens the position in Wales quite considerably.'

I don't understand that comment. The case law clearly allows decisions to be made without assessments. That does not strengthen establishing people-centred plans. In fact, it does quite the opposite. I'd be very interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary's response on this point. I believe that it would strengthen this Bill; it would provide clarity on the need for assessments to inform decisions and reviews. This would deal head on with any issues caused by the recent case law. Diolch.

The Amendment I've proposed is intended to clarify that the contents of the housing needs assessment must be taken into account when making any decision as to the suitability of accommodation, as well as any subsequent review stage. At present, the position is such that the decisions regarding the provision of accommodation are to be made without entitlement to know whether the applicant has any specific housing requirements, or what those requirements may be. This creates a risk that decisions are taken on an incomplete evidential basis. Requiring reviewing officers to have regard to the housing needs assessment would enable more informed and robust decision making and would reduce the likelihood of unsuitable accommodation being offered to applicants.

Concerns have also been raised in light of recent case law in England concerning decisions on suitability made in the context of deficient housing needs assessments. In that context, and bearing in mind the Welsh Government's stated intention to move towards a more person-centred approach to homelessness services in Wales, it is considered both appropriate and helpful to make explicit that a housing needs assessment must be considered when determining the suitability of accommodation. It is further intended to clarify that the decision maker must also take account of any deficiencies identified within that assessment. Thank you, Llywydd.

This is all about the prevention of homelessness. I want to commend the role of Cardiff Council in rigorously using housing first as a strategy to fulfil their obligations where at all possible.

I'm currently dealing with the case of a child with no legal guardian threatened with eviction at the end of this week. His legal guardian has died and the courts have yet to determine whether the person applying to replace them is appropriately qualified to take on that considerable responsibility. The home they've lived in for most of their lives is suitable for their needs, as whoever the courts appoint will need a separate bedroom from the child. Yet the social landlord currently deems that the rights from the Renting Homes (Wales) Act  2016 require this child to be evicted on the grounds that they're too young to inherit the tenancy.

So, are the prevention clauses of the homelessness Bill strong enough to meet the paramount needs of the child? Section 4 already lays out the right to a review, and my sense is that the suitability of the accommodation that I've just laid out is already a very strong case for the social landlord to, hopefully, come to the view that I am taking that this child should remain in this property pending the appointment of a legal guardian who will then be able to take over the tenancy.

Clearly, all landlords have to protect the rights of all citizens to be fairly assessed, and somebody who's trying to game the system needs to be prevented from doing so—falsely claiming that they have a claim to a property. I'm not convinced that the Bill needs further Amendment in this regard, but I would welcome the views of the Cabinet Secretary, without, obviously, knowing anything about the details.

The Cabinet Secretary to contribute. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. Before I talk to the amendments in this group, I'd just like to place on record my thanks to colleagues here in the Senedd and to our partners for their engagement and interest in the Bill. I particularly welcome the engagement of Siân Gwenllian and Joel James, and for their consistent and prolonged interaction with this work. I welcome amendments tabled by Rhys ab Owen at Stage 3 and the opportunity they provide for important discussion today. Whether it be through a role on committees, in tabling amendments, or supporting our broader policy aims, many colleagues here and outside of the Senedd have contributed to the evolution of this legislation—legislation that stands to make a very real difference to the people of Wales.

I know there is broad agreement for the principles of this legislation, and I believe we are aligned in our commitment to ensure this Bill safely traverses the final stages of scrutiny. We cannot afford to get this wrong. At its core is the lived experience of 350 people who have survived the horrors of homelessness. This Bill was developed with them, and our work today is for them. 

However, we must not forget that to realise our aims, local authorities must be able to implement well. We only deliver our policy ambition by ensuring this Bill is deliverable. This is a difficult and fragile balance, but a balance I believe we have struck. Some amendments today place this balance at risk, and I urge caution. We must maintain stability to ensure that the opportunities offered through these reforms are realised, and I ask everyone to consider this carefully as we progress this debate.

So, let me move now to the amendments in group 1. Section 4 of the Bill inserts new section 63A and 63B in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 to ensure that every applicant owed a duty has their own prevention, accommodation and support plan—PSAP for short—and that the plan is maintained and kept under review. The introduction of PSAPs is key to our prevention focus. As the title of the plans make clear, they require a holistic assessment of the applicant’s needs in relation to prevention or relief of homelessness and wider issues in their life, in addition to considering what accommodation might be necessary. 

The PSAP will ensure that everyone owed a duty receives support tailored to their needs. It'll shift the focus of local housing authorities from technical delivery of a process to a person-centred approach.

Amendments 32 and 34 demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill as currently drafted, particularly the role of the PSAP. The Bill clearly states that the PSAP forms part of an applicant's written records and describes in some detail the joint role for the local housing authority and the applicant in putting their plan together. Moreover, it sets out an extensive list of requirements for the PSAP, including to record the reasonable steps to be taken to prevent homelessness and to ensure the applicant is given a copy of the plan.

The PSAP must be maintained and reviewed. New section 63B sets out a rigorous requirement to review the PSAP every eight weeks or when circumstances change, and section 5 of the Bill provides the applicant with a right to request a review of their PSAP at any time during which the local housing authority is required to maintain the plan, rendering the purpose of Amendment 35 entirely unnecessary. These strong safeguards ensure that PSAPs are properly assessed, kept under review and given due consideration in decisions on the suitability of accommodation.

In Wales local housing authorities must already assess whether accommodation is suitable for each member of the household when discharging homelessness functions. I note Rhys's reference to recent case law. Taken together, the provisions within the Bill ensures that the Bill adequately addresses the issues arising from the cases that I believe lie behind these amendments. Amendment 33, tabled by Rhys, and amendment 67, tabled by Joel, are therefore unnecessary. The Bill sets out a comprehensive set of requirements to provide a trauma-informed, person-centred framework to respond to homelessness. It's unclear to me, therefore, what additional purpose these amendments serve. They are unnecessary and duplicative, and I urge Members to vote against them. [Interruption.] Easier said than done on that one. [Laughter.]

Rhys ab Owen to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. 'Unnecessary', you might say, Cabinet Secretary, but you don't have to listen to me when I say that they are necessary. If there's any doubt that the case law will impact on the right to review, just look at who supports these, as I've already said: Crisis, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, End Youth Homelessness Cymru, Llamau, Tai Pawb, the Wallich, Bridgeman Community Foundation—these are the organisations supporting homeless individuals every single day. We should be listening and acting on their experience, evidence and concerns. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that Amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, 24 in favour and 24 against, and therefore I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed—24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against.

Amendment 32: For: 24, Against: 24, Abstain: 0

As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 33 is next. Is it moved?

Amendment 33 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is, by Rhys Owen. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. We will move to a vote on Amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote. It is again a tied vote, and I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. And therefore the result of the vote is that there were 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 33 is not agreed.

Amendment 33: For: 24, Against: 24, Abstain: 0

As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 67. Is it moved, Joel James?

Is Amendment 67 being moved?

Amendment 67 (Joel James) moved.

Yes, it is.

Are there any objections to Amendment 67? [Objection.]

Yes, there is. 

We will therefore move to a vote on Amendment 67. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is again tied. I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 67. The result of the vote is 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 67 is not agreed.

Amendment 67: For: 24, Against: 24, Abstain: 0

As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 34. Is it moved, Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 34 (Rhys ab Owen, supported by Joel James) moved.

It is. Are there any objections to Amendment 34? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. Again, the vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against amendment 34. The result of the vote, therefore, is that there were 24 in favour, 25 against, no abstentions. Amendment 34 is therefore not agreed.

Amendment 34: For: 24, Against: 24, Abstain: 0

As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 35. Is it moved, Rhys ab Owen? 

Amendment 35 (Rhys ab Owen, supported by Joel James) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will therefore move to a vote on Amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. There were, therefore, 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 35 is therefore not agreed.

Amendment 35: For: 24, Against: 24, Abstain: 0

As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).

Amendment has been rejected