Group 9 is the next group of amendments. These relate to co-operation. Amendment 57 is the lead amendment. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment.

Amendment 57 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. You'll be pleased to know that the reasons for these amendments are identical to those outlined for group 5 for educational and medical sectors, so I won't say much. The amendments in my name would extend the duty on specified public bodies to co-operate with a request from a local authority to include GP practices and local education authorities in Wales. I won't repeat the reasons why I think this is a good idea. It's based on good evidence. Diolch yn fawr.

These amendments to section 32 are included to achieve a number of related and important objectives. Firstly, they seek to ensure that landlords have access to relevant information about households' housing and support needs when they are required to comply with a request to provide accommodation, thereby enabling them to make an appropriate and informed allocation decision. Secondly, the amendments clarify that this duty applies only in respect of registered social landlords' social housing stock. In particular, they make clear that registered social landlords cannot be directed to allocate accommodation from their market housing, intermediate rent or student let portfolios. Thirdly, the amendments provide that appropriate statutory guidance must be in place before these provisions are brought into force, in order to support consistent and effective implementation. Finally, they ensure that local housing authorities as well as registered social landlords are required to have regard to the guidance when exercising their functions under these provisions. Thank you.

Amendments 57 and 58, tabled by Rhys, aim to include local education authorities and primary care services within the duty to co-operate. For the reasons I've already set out in relation to amendments 53 and 54, I cannot support these amendments, which are inappropriately broad and misaligned to the purpose of the duty.

The duty to co-operate enables local housing authorities to request the co-operation of specified persons in the exercise of their homelessness functions. Extending this duty to local education authorities and primary care services would be inappropriate, as these bodies are unlikely to be able to meaningfully contribute to the aims the duty is intended to achieve. The amendments would place the duty not just on GPs, but on NHS pharmacists, opticians and dentists—bodies that can play no relevant role to the duty. Likewise, a duty placed on the education authority does not target relevant professional roles.

The Bill contains a regulation-making power that means that we can add relevant bodies to the list of individuals subject to the duty over time. This power is the most appropriate mechanism for adding to the list in future, allowing for proper consultation and ensuring those made subject to the duty can meaningfully deliver its aims. I urge Members to reject these amendments. The bodies subject to the duty to co-operate must be in a position to assist local housing authorities in line with the purpose of the duty. The bodies added in via these amendments are not.

Section 32 introduces a new duty on social landlords to comply with a local authority’s request to make an offer of suitable accommodation for an applicant owed the final homelessness duty unless there is good reason not to. Amendment 75 proposes that an additional line is inserted into section 32, requiring that this duty applies only in relation to housing accommodation that would be available for an allocation of social housing under 160B of the Housing Act 1996, and that it is therefore only an offer of accommodation for the purpose of Part 6 of the Housing Act.

I do not believe this is necessary. Social landlords are required to make an offer of suitable accommodation unless there is a good reason not to. A lack of suitable accommodation would be a good reason. Social landlords are not expected to offer or provide accommodation that they manage or own for purposes other than social housing. Such an expectation would be unreasonable. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment 75 as it's unnecessary. 

At Stage 2, I brought forward an amendment that requires the Welsh Ministers to give guidance, replacing the previous discretionary power to issue guidance, on this matter. The purpose of the guidance is to support local authorities and social landlords to implement the new duty in section 32. All partners can therefore be reassured that guidance will be in place.

Amendment 76 seeks to require guidance on information sharing and partnership working to support section 32, and amendment 77 sets requirements about the timing of publication. Since local authorities can only discharge the final duty into suitable accommodation, it follows that they will need to share relevant information and do so in accordance with existing arrangements to achieve this.

Good co-operation relies on information exchange that is necessary, proportionate, and in line with data protection legislation. I've made clear, on several occasions, that the most effective way to ensure information is shared in this way is through the use of information-sharing protocols. I'm committed to supporting our partners to develop these and my officials are already in touch with the Wales Accord on the Sharing of Personal Information team to identify ways to provide this support.

I must also say that the drafting of amendment 76 does not work in the way I suspect it was intended. In trying to require guidance to be given on information sharing and partnership working, the amendment inadvertently creates an unwanted adverse effect. It suggests, through the position of the inserted words and the reference to 'particularly', that the required guidance about 'good reasons', 'reasonable periods' and 'reasonable requests' can only be about information sharing and partnership working. We want the guidance to also relate to other things, such as the availability of suitable housing stock. So, leaving aside the merits of the intended effect, I cannot support it on technical grounds.

Amendment 77 will also not work as I suspect it was intended. The amendment would require guidance to be in place before enactment, but enactment occurs on Royal Assent. This would require the guidance to be published before the Bill receives Royal Assent, which would be unworkable. We suspect that the intention was for the guidance to be required before the coming into force of the section, rather than enactment, but that is not what the amendment would achieve.

Amendment 78 requires local housing authorities to have regard to the guidance, and as I have said, the broader amendments relating to this guidance don't work, so I suspect that this amendment may fall away. Regardless, an amendment to this effect is unnecessary. Section 98 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 already requires local authorities to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers when they exercise their homelessness functions. I therefore urge all Members to reject amendments 57, 58, 75, 76, 77 and 78.

Rhys ab Owen to reply. No. Okay, we will move to a vote on Amendment 57. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are objections. We will open the vote on amendment 57. Close the vote. In favour 12, 12 abstentions and 24 against. Therefore, amendment 57 is not agreed.

Amendment 57: For: 12, Against: 24, Abstain: 12

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 58. Is it moved? 

Amendment 58 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, we will open the vote on Amendment 58. Close the vote. In favour 12, 12 abstentions and 24 against. Therefore, amendment 58 is not agreed.

Amendment 58: For: 12, Against: 24, Abstain: 12

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 75—

Amendment 75, Joel James. Is it being moved?

Amendment 75 (Joel James) moved.

Yes.

Are there any objections to Amendment 75? [Objection.] There are. We will open the vote on amendment 75. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 75 is not agreed.

Amendment 75: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 76, Joel James. Is it being moved?

Amendment 76 (Joel James) moved.

It is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will open the vote on Amendment 76. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 76 is not agreed.

Amendment 76: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 77—

Amendment 77. Is it being moved, Joel James?

Amendment 77 (Joel James) moved.

Yes, it is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 77. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 77 is not agreed.

Amendment 77: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 78—

Amendment 78. Is it being moved?

Amendment 78 (Joel James) moved.

Yes, by Joel James.

Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 78. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 78 is not agreed.

Amendment 78: For: 12, Against: 36, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected