– in the Senedd at 6:40 pm on 3 February 2026.
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:40,
3 February 2026
We'll move now to our tenth group of amendments relating to deliberate manipulation. The lead Amendment is amendment 59. I call on Rhys ab Owen.
Rhys ab Owen
Plaid Cymru
6:40,
3 February 2026
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Amendment 59 enables reconsideration of the deliberate manipulation test where there is a relevant change of circumstances. Amendment 60 ensures that in order to apply the deliberate manipulation test, it must be clear that the person's intention was to deliberately manipulate the system. Amendment 61 protects people who may have been found to have deliberately manipulated, but were subject to domestic abuse or coercion, which led to these actions. Amendment 62 provides that the local authority should write a 'minded to' letter before applying the deliberate manipulation Clause. And finally, amendment 63 enables the Welsh Government to make regulations to apply a time frame for which the deliberate manipulation test remains live. This would maintain the deterrent for people not to manipulate the system, but would also mean that people are not barred for life.
Why are these amendments required? Well, I agree with the concerns not only of the Local Government and Housing Committee, as outlined in conclusion 4 of its Stage 1 report on the Bill, but also, again, the homeless charities, that we must ensure that a deliberate manipulation test is applied in a trauma-informed manner, so that it does not leave vulnerable people unable to access social housing, and that it doesn't make the situation of vulnerable people even worse. We need to keep at the forefront of our minds that the intention of this Bill is not to punish, but to bring homelessness to an end in Wales. My amendments 59 to 63 would see us act on that important principle. Diolch yn fawr.
Jayne Bryant
Labour
6:42,
3 February 2026
Thanks to Rhys for tabling these amendments. The intention of the deliberate manipulation test is to disincentivise any deliberate action that puts an individual's current housing at risk in order to gain access to or prioritisation when applying for social housing. The test will not affect access to homelessness assistance. It will mean the applicant will not be given preference for an allocation of social housing related to their homelessness. Any other reasonable preference will be retained. Applicants will continue to be owed any homelessness duty that applies to them.
Amendment 59 proposes that section 35 is amended so that, after asking for a reconsideration following a change in circumstance, an applicant previously found to have deliberately manipulated the housing system would no longer be treated as having done so. I understand the intention behind this amendment, but, in practice, it's unnecessary and unworkable. It's unclear how a change of circumstance would affect the initial actions taken by the applicant to deliberately manipulate the system, and the amendment will create confusion and lead to inconsistency in practice. The Bill already requires local housing authorities to review decisions relating to deliberate manipulation when requested to by applicants.
Amendment 60 proposes further amendments to section 35, which duplicate the existing drafting. This is clearly unnecessary, and the drafting of the new deliberate manipulation test sufficiently describes the acts or omissions that are intended to amount to trying to manipulate the housing allocation system. The current drafting around the test already introduces an additional safeguard by clarifying that an act or omission carried out in good faith by a person who was unaware of a relevant fact should not be regarded as deliberate. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment 60 on the grounds that it duplicates the existing drafting.
Amendment 61 amends section 35 to provide that applicants who were victims of abuse are not to be found to have deliberately manipulated the housing system. While I understand the concern for those who've experienced abuse, the test already provides sufficient safeguards, which are drafted broadly to aid inclusion and flexibility.
The deliberate manipulation test only applies where an applicant ceases to occupy accommodation that was reasonable for them to occupy. Let me be clear, it would never be reasonable for someone experiencing abuse to continue to occupy accommodation with their abuser. Experience of abuse within that accommodation would render it unreasonable to occupy, so the test would not apply in such circumstances. Additionally, even where applicants have entered into arrangements resulting in them ceasing to occupy accommodation that it would otherwise have been reasonable for them to occupy, the test can only apply where there is no other good reason why the person became homeless. I am therefore of the view that this amendment is not necessary and unnecessarily narrows the provision.
Amendment 62 requires that in applying the deliberate manipulation test, the local housing authority must write to the applicant informing them of their intention to apply the test and allow the applicant sufficient time to respond in writing. This amendment cannot be implemented effectively. As I've continuously expressed, it will be important that the implications of behaviour are discussed with applicants at an early stage in order to prevent unnecessary homelessness from occurring, and this will be provided for in guidance. However, in many cases, the behaviour that meets the test will only come to an authority's attention when it has been committed. In these cases, any warning correspondence will have no purpose.
Amendment 63 provides for the Welsh Ministers to prescribe in legislation a maximum time for which a deliberate manipulation test and any subsequent removal of reasonable preference may take effect for an applicant. Again, such an amendment is unworkable and it takes no account of localised pressure such as the accessibility of social housing and availability of temporary accommodation. The amendment also prompts concern regarding unintended consequences. We do not want to risk people remaining in temporary accommodation for longer than they have to, or disincentivise use of wider forms of accommodation. An unfeasible time frame could lead applicants being deprioritised for longer and undermine the flexibility local authorities have around application of the test, creating a race for the longest time frame, not the shortest, and putting additional pressure on social housing allocation.
The introduction of the deliberate manipulation test was a recommendation of the expert review panel and it's been very carefully drafted to ensure it provides balance between accountability and support. Guidance will play a critical role in implementing the test and the Government will continue to work with partners to develop this guidance. I am therefore unable to support amendments 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 and urge the Senedd to vote against them.
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:47,
3 February 2026
Does Rhys ab Owen wish to reply? No. The question is that Amendment 59 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote on amendment 59. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. The amendment is not agreed.
Division number 7133
Amendment 59
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:48,
3 February 2026
Amendment 60. Is it moved, Rhys ab Owen?
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:48,
3 February 2026
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 60. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 60 is not agreed.
Division number 7134
Amendment 60
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:48,
3 February 2026
Amendment 61. Is it moved?
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:48,
3 February 2026
It is, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on Amendment 61. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, amendment 61 is not agreed, with 24 in favour and 25 against.
Division number 7135
Amendment 61
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:49,
3 February 2026
Amendment 62 is next. Is it moved?
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:49,
3 February 2026
It is, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will move to a vote. Open the vote on Amendment 62. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 62 is not agreed.
Division number 7136
Amendment 62
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:49,
3 February 2026
Rhys ab Owen, Amendment 63.
Elin Jones
Plaid Cymru
6:50,
3 February 2026
Amendment 63 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 63. Close the vote. In favour two, nine abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 63 is not agreed.
Division number 7137
Amendment 63
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
