The second group of amendments now, and the second group of amendments relates to local connection. The lead Amendment in the group is amendment 36. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment.

Amendment 36 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary's team for their time yesterday in discussing in particular these amendments. Ultimately, it was clear that perhaps the Cabinet Secretary and her team would have wished me to withdraw the set of amendments, but I will go ahead to explain why I have not and why I believe that these amendments are necessary.

There is already substantial evidence that some groups are at increased vulnerability from the local connection test. Amendment 42 protects a small number of people who have no local connection at all. Under the Bill, as currently drafted, a person within this small group would be able to apply to any local authority in Wales and would be entitled to interim accommodation for a finite period only, but not to the main housing duty. The consequences of these amendments failing are significant, as experience and evidence clearly show how difficult it is to end their homelessness.

I'm grateful again to Joel James and the Welsh Conservatives for their understanding and formal support, and I'm pleased that we have the backing again of Crisis, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, End Youth Homelessness Cymru, Llamau, Tai Pawb, the Wallich and the Bridgeman Community Foundation, who advise this, and I quote: 'We remain of the belief that, as drafted, the Bill does not provide sufficiently strong protection to people in this situation.'

Amendment 49 would mean that when an applicant has travelled from one local housing association—authority A—to another local housing authority—authority B—the applicant may recover any reasonable travel expenses incurred from authority B, if that authority owes them a housing duty. And this is simple, because homelessness and poverty go hand in hand. For example, one of the two main reasons why people become homeless is problems in the system, which include the rising costs of housing, the poverty trap and welfare benefit cuts.

The aim of my amendment is to ensure that the local connection test does not add to that poverty pressure. In short, it could mean that should a homeless person whose housing duty rests with Cardiff Council be staying temporarily in Swansea, they can be compensated the cost of travelling back to Cardiff by public transport from the fund by Cardiff Council. Interestingly, should there be no local connection test, that individual would not need to travel at all and could be housed in Swansea. However, bearing in mind that the test is to remain in, the costs of homeless individuals travelling to the relevant authority must not be met by that individual who is already in such a difficult circumstance.

The rest of my amendments in the group relate to for whom the local housing authority must secure suitable accommodation. Several witnesses, including Professor Mackie, Professor Fitzpatrick, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, the Wallich, Crisis, G4S Community, Clinks and the National Youth Advocacy Service said that they would be in favour of putting exempt categories on the face of the Bill, with a view to reinstating local connection for those categories in the future if it does, in fact, lead to unmanageable impacts. And it's important for us to tackle the point about unmanageable impact. For example, amendments 37 and 44 exempt an individual from the local connection test if the applicant is at risk of abuse if the case is referred to another housing authority. There will need to be evidence of that risk that will limit the requirement's application. Also, the wording of the Amendment mirrors what was proposed by the Welsh Government in their white paper.

Amendments 38 and 45, which refer to situations where the applicant has suffered abuse and will experience trauma as a result of that abuse if the case is referred to another local authority, would also require that same level of evidence. Additionally, again, this mirrors the wording of the proposal in the Government's White Paper, which, of course, was based on the recommendation of the expert panel, which included representatives of Crisis, Cardiff University, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, the Welsh Local Government Association, Carmarthenshire council, Conwy council, Pembrokeshire council, Community Housing Cymru and Tai Pawb. This is also the case for amendments 41 and 48, which relate to people who are care experienced, and 36 and 43, veterans and those who lived with them.

In terms of veterans, the Veterans' Commissioner for Wales has shared concerns that the Bill does not provide exemption from the local connection test for military veterans and their families in Wales. The commissioner noted, and I again quote:

'The failure to provide local connection exemption for homeless Veterans in Wales places them at a clear disadvantage to veterans in England and goes against the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant.'

Again, amendments 39 and 46, which refer to prisoners who have been required to move from one local authority to another as part of their rehabilitation or to assist in meeting the restriction placed on where they may live, reflect the ask of the expert panel and the proposal in the White Paper. Additionally, stakeholders have identified local connection as a barrier, a huge barrier, to rehabilitation for prison leavers. The committee even heard from HMPPS, His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. They said it would be helpful to have flexibility to exempt prison leavers from existing local connection tests, as there are, and I again quote,

'certain circumstances where people may benefit from a fresh start'.

And finally, Llywydd, amendments 40 and 47 would assist those seeking recovery from misuse of drugs and other substances. This is supported by 'Ending homelessness in Wales: a legislative review' report published in 2023. This found, for example, that:

'Being forced to remain in a particular area, in close proximity to connections related to their substance use and risk of criminal exploitation, can have a negative impact on an individual’s recovery.'

They also heard the following from an expert on the matter:

'Many people want to move out of area as they have connections to drug use or violence in their local area. The current law does not take this into consideration and people are trapped in a cycle of homelessness due to being unable to move away from their past if they don’t have local connection outside their area.'

It's a ridiculous rule that prevents people from getting the help they need. The evidence, Members of the Senedd, is clear and the exceptions are required. The help is needed. I look forward to the vote on each of those categories. Diolch yn fawr.

The amendments I've proposed are brought forward in recognition of the evidence consistently provided by people with lived experience, who frequently tell us that they struggle to understand and navigate complex administrative systems. This concern was also a recurring theme during the committee evidence sessions. Against that background, it is considered beneficial, where an applicant is referred to an authority in England on the basis of local connection, for the referring local housing authority to ensure that the applicant is clearly informed of the referral and its implications. This is particularly important given that the systems of support and assistance provided by English authorities may differ from those available in Wales. This Amendment would not impose a significant burden on local authorities. On the contrary, the requirement could be readily met through the provision of clear, plain language guidance drafted centrally and made available for use by all local authorities. Thank you, Llywydd.

I'd like to start by reaffirming my support for the core principles of this Bill, especially the intention to strengthen the system and ensure that it operates more fairly and more effectively for those who are most in need. I do draw attention to the fact that Plaid Cymru, during Stage 2, did succeed in removing section 35 from the Bill. I think that that was an important step forward. Including section 35 would have undermined the principle of universalism. That's a core principle for us in our party. So, I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for her support during Stage 2 in order to ensure that that is not in the Bill.

I want to talk about the amendments on local connection, amendments that we do oppose, to a great extent, but I do want to explain why, and be entirely clear that, of course, we do sympathise with the concerns that form the basis for them. Basically, this goes to the heart of the 'special circumstances' principle. In practice, this is the mechanism that can ensure that certain individuals or groups that don't fit neatly into the general rules are still protected. Our position is that we should include and treat those special circumstances in an appropriate way through regulations that are robust and flexible, rather than listing specific groups on the face of the Bill itself.

Now, I fully recognise that some of the groups that are mentioned in the amendments, including veterans and those who are leaving care, of course do face real disadvantages. The work that Plaid Cymru has done with military veterans and other vulnerable groups does show that our commitment to them is unequivocal. So, the argument against is not for a lack of will or a lack of understanding of the challenges that exist. But there is a question of principle here, and it is not reasonable, in our opinion, to include certain groups on the face of the Bill and then, if it becomes necessary to recognise other groups in the future, to have to do so through guidelines or secondary legislation that are less robust. What is proposed in the amendments is likely to create a complex and possibly unjust hierarchy between different groups of people, elevating some to the status of primary legislation. That is not the most sensible or fair way to design a system that claims to be based on need. Rather, this underlines, once again, the importance of using the regulatory powers that are contained in the Bill. Through regulations, it would be possible to consider all potentially disadvantaged groups as a whole and ensure that any differential treatment is fully justified and proportionate, and we can have appropriate consultation to avoid unintended consequences.

Finally, turning to Joel James's amendments 68 and 69, our understanding is that they would require the consent of the UK Government. Of course, we do not want to jeopardise the legislative competence of this Bill, given the tight timescale for the legislation and its important content, so we can't support those at this time.

So, in conclusion, although we do sympathise with the intentions behind these amendments, we do firmly believe that the most solid, fair and sensible route is to use the framework of regulations to deal with special circumstances, rather than creating a complex and fragmented system on the face of the Bill itself.

I would want to express caution on any attempt to water down the local connection duty, because of the even more acute housing crisis in some parts of England, which is bound to encourage people to move to Wales if they think they can get away with it.

The failure of the UK Government to act on suspending the right to buy, despite announcing its intention to do so, is having a really devastating impact on the shrinking number of social homes in areas of huge housing need and very expensive private rented accommodation, for example like London. So, I would have considerable concerns about opening the door so wide that everybody would feel they could pile in.

But aren't we a nation of sanctuary?

We are a nation of sanctuary, but the numbers involved are tiny, and those are people who have already been sent to us by the UK Government, and we need to ensure that they're not abusing that nation of sanctuary.

Similarly, in terms of arguing who should have a local connection, we've already heard about veterans, survivors of abuse, former prisoners. A wilful future Government in London might deliberately transfer a prisoner to a prison in Wales at the very end of their sentence as a deliberate act to say, 'Well, you've got this open-ended commitment; you sort it out.' We absolutely have to have the powers to restrict it to those who are clearly the people I've mentioned, as well as a very tiny—very tiny—group of itinerant people who it would be possible to give an exemption Clause to if they couldn't claim to be having a local connection anywhere in Britain.

So, I think that we should move with caution on this one in the context of the seamless borders we operate in and the need to ensure that we are able to deal with the numbers already needing social accommodation, and not making it impossible for us to ensure that everybody is appropriately housed.

I'd like to say I'm in full agreement with Amendment 43, to give our serving personnel and our armed forces community adequate right to housing and an exemption from the local criteria. Our Veterans' Commissioner for Wales has been very clear, and he does an exceptional job in representing our veterans community across Wales, and their families, and if the veterans' commissioner is saying that this is going to create a problem for them, then I think this is something the Senedd needs to take really seriously. So, I'd like to thank Rhys ab Owen for bringing that amendment forward. I'd like to hear probably from the Minister, when she responds to this part of the debate, why this Welsh Government probably feels they cannot support this amendment. Because I was always led to believe that this Welsh Government supported our veterans community across Wales, and those people who have served our nation and were going to give the ultimate sacrifice so that we can all live our lives. So, I'd like to have an explanation from the Government of why they're not going to support amendment 43. Diolch, Llywydd.

The Cabinet Secretary to contribute—Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. This group relates to the role of local connection in relation to homelessness duties and in relation to referrals between authorities. So, the circumstances in which a person may have a local connection to an area are unchanged by the Bill. They cover a wide range of circumstances linked to residency, employment, family associations and special circumstances connecting a person to an area. This ensures that local housing authorities have flexibility to take into account particular circumstances that may be specific to individuals or their own area, as needed.

The Bill also contains a range of regulation-making powers in relation to local connection. These powers enable us to further refine the scope of local connection by specifying circumstances in which a person has a local connection to an area, providing for additional exemptions from a local connection referral, and additional exemptions to the requirement to have a local connection to Wales.

Amendments 36 to 48 propose a series of circumstances in which a person would be exempt from the new local-connection-to-Wales test, which is set out in section 6 of the Bill. Llywydd, I cannot state strongly enough the danger these amendments pose to the integrity of the Bill. The amendments risk overburdening local authorities in Wales, creating a significant unquantifiable cost and seriously undermining the aims of the entire Bill. They are undeliverable and compromise the effectiveness of the carefully curated package of measures within the Bill.

The revised homelessness system for Wales, established by this Bill, is world leading and easily the most inclusive system within the UK. As I have stated countless times across all stages of the Bill, we must ensure resources to implement this Bill are targeted at communities in Wales. Local connection is a key tool in ensuring local authority resources are focused on people in their communities. These amendments undermine this. They fail to take account of cross-border implications, and make Welsh local authorities responsible for a potentially enormous number of people with no link to Wales.

As our white paper made clear, we recognise there are some groups that may be disadvantaged by local connection, and I remain committed to exploring further how we can mitigate this impact. This must, however, be done extremely carefully, working with partners to ensure that an appropriate approach is applied across Wales. This is the reason the Bill contains a range of regulation-making powers in relation to local connection, which allow for us to refine the scope of it over time, managing these significant risks. I therefore strongly urge Members to vote against these damaging amendments, which risk the entirety of this Bill.

Moving now to the amendments relating to local connection referrals or movement between local authorities, Amendment 49 would allow homelessness applicants to claim back their travel costs from an authority that owes them a duty under new section 75, if they have travelled to that authority from another authority that did not owe them a section 75 duty. The amendment is unclear, particularly in relation to why an applicant is travelling between authorities. It's very broadly worded, going beyond those cases where a person is referred from one authority to another, with no consideration of cross-border impacts. There are also no safeguards to manage the expense for local authorities or address unintended consequences linked to unnecessary travel, or use of the most cost-effective mode of transport.

I'm unable to support this amendment, which has not been raised at any earlier stage of legislative development, including during the work of the expert review panel or the White Paper consultation. There has been no consultation with local authorities, sector partners, people with lived experience or the wider homelessness and advice sector on a measure like this, and, certainly, no concerns raised with me on this matter. Without this engagement, there is no evidence to understand the impact of the amendment and its financial implications. 

Amendments 68 and 69 are linked, and make provision for applicants transferred to a local housing authority in England to be given certain information. Section 14(7) of the Bill makes changes to the law that applies to local housing authorities in England when a person is referred to them from Wales. The changes reflect the fact that priority need and intentionality will be abolished in Wales, but will remain in England, and that it is for local authorities in England to assess whether they owe duties to people seeking their assistance under the law that applies there.

It places a requirement on housing authorities in Wales to provide specific information to an applicant when they're referring them to an authority in England. This includes confirmation of which duty will be owed by the authority in England, an explanation of that duty and confirmation of rights to review that will apply under the law applying in England. Section 16 of the Bill already requires housing authorities in Wales to notify an applicant of a decision to refer them to an authority in another area, the reasons why they have taken this decision, the effect on their entitlements, and their rights of review under the law in Wales. It is for local housing authorities in England to determine what duties apply to a person that is referred to them, in accordance with the law that applies there.

The Bill already strikes the right balance by ensuring that people who are referred to housing authorities in England are treated by those authorities as having applied for homelessness assistance. It is for those receiving authorities to determine what duties apply under the law applicable in England. To go further and to have Welsh local housing authorities specify which duties will be owed by the authority in England risks overstepping, and has the potential of causing confusion. I strongly urge Members to reject amendments 36 to 49, 68 and 69.

Rhys ab Owen to reply to the debate. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I appreciate Siân Gwenllian’s arguments, but I don't agree with her. Having these on the face of the Bill won't complicate the issue. What could complicate the issue, and what could lead to things taking more time, a great deal more time, would be to do it through regulations—regulations that are often not scrutinised as much as Bills are scrutinised.

The needs of the groups that are included in my amendments are totally clear. You only need to go and speak to the homeless on our streets to see that these groups are represented very clearly. Interestingly, throughout the whole debate I haven't heard an example of a group that should have been included that has been omitted from my amendments.

Jenny Rathbone, this is not a matter of everyone piling in, and I'm not sure if we should be using language such as that, Jenny. I’m sure you probably didn't mean it like that. Obviously, it would be restrictive, and my amendments create restriction. And with the greatest of respect, I don't think we should be legislating in this place on the basis of what a potential, perhaps, sinister Westminster Government might or might not do. The likelihood of a Westminster Government deciding to send all the prisoners from English prisons to Welsh prisons is so unlikely, and then for them to decide that they want to stay in Wales.

I don't agree that these amendments are undeliverable. Certainly if, on the one hand, you think they will be included in future regulations, clearly they can be deliverable. And I don't agree that these amendments can be seen as damaging. Diolch.

You can see, I hope, though, that there are risks related to this legislation, to ensure that it meets the needs of homeless people in Wales.

Of course, and there are clear restrictions on who can be qualified, who can be deemed as to fit into the limited categories in the Amendment. So, I think it deals with your concern and, of course, if there are future issues, we have to remember that there is such a thing as post-legislation scrutiny, post-legislation amendment.

I don't agree that my amendments are damaging. Once again, these are concerns that have been raised by homeless charities. Again, can I just remind everyone that these amendments, which the Cabinet Secretary has described as damaging, have been supported by Crisis, Cardiff University, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, the WLGA, Carmarthenshire council, Conwy council and Pembrokeshire council? These councils—and the Cabinet Secretary is saying they would be undeliverable, the amendments—are supporting them, as are Community Housing Cymru and Tai Pawb. I see no reason why this clear issue should be ignored today, and I encourage everyone to vote in favour. Diolch.

The question is that Amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, we will therefore move to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. That amendment is therefore not agreed. 

Amendment 36: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 37. Is it moved, Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 37 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections to Amendment 37? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 37 is not agreed.

Amendment 37: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 38. Is it moved?

Amendment 38 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections to 38? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on Amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 38 is not agreed.

Amendment 38: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Rhys ab Owen, Amendment 39.

Amendment 39 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It's moved, yes. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There is objection. So, open the vote on Amendment 39. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 39 is not agreed.

Amendment 39: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 40. Is it moved, Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 40 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections to Amendment 40? [Objection.] Yes, there are. Open the vote on amendment 40. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 40 is not agreed.

Amendment 40: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 41, Rhys ab Owen. Is it moved?

Amendment 41 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 41. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 41 is not agreed.

Amendment 41: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 42. Is it moved, Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 42 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

Yes. Are there any objections to Amendment 42? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 42. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 42 is not agreed.

Amendment 42: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Is Amendment 43 moved, Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 43 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, open the vote on Amendment 43. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed.

Amendment 43: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 44. Is it moved?

Amendment 44 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections to that? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we'll open the vote on Amendment 44. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 44 is not agreed.

Amendment 44: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 45. Is it moved?

Amendment 45 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is moved, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, we'll open the vote on Amendment 45. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.

Amendment 45: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 46. Is it moved?

Amendment 46 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is moved, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 46. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 36 against. Amendment 46 is not agreed.

Amendment 46: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Rhys ab Owen, Amendment 47. Is it moved?

Amendment 47 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 47. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 36 against. Amendment 47 is not agreed.

Amendment 47: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 48. Is it moved by Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 48 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Open the vote on Amendment 48. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 48 is not agreed.

Amendment 48: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 49. Is it moved by Rhys ab Owen?

Amendment 49 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Therefore, we will open the vote on Amendment 49. Close the vote. In favour 1, 22 abstentions, and 25 against. Therefore, amendment 49 is not agreed.

Amendment 49: For: 1, Against: 25, Abstain: 22

Amendment has been rejected