National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. The meeting is being held in hybrid format, but, aside from adaptations relating to conducting proceedings in that format, all other Standing Order requirements remain in place. The public items in the meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv, and a Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. The meeting is bilingual, and simultaneous translation is available. Are there any declarations of interest from members of the committee? No.

Then we will move on to item 2, which is the committee's first evidence session in our inquiry into local authority library and leisure services. I'm very pleased to welcome, joining us here in person, Glenn Bowen, interim chief executive of Cwmpas, and, joining us virtually, Jennifer Huygen, head of policy and strategic partnerships for Community Leisure UK, Owen Hathway, assistant director for investments, insights, policy and public affairs for Sports Wales, and Lyn Cadwallader, chief executive of One Voice Wales. Thank you all very much for coming in to give evidence to committee today. Perhaps I might begin with some overview questions, and, firstly, could you summarise the key benefits and value of leisure and library services to communities and those that use them, the impact on communities when services are withdrawn, as well, please? Who would like to begin? Jennifer, thank you very much.

I can start us off.

Yes, please.

Good morning, everyone. I think the key benefits of leisure and library services to communities really cannot be overstated. They promote physical and mental well-being through various programmes and partnerships and that includes adult education, early years provision, school holiday programming, and, of course, the national exercise referral scheme. So, they reduce inequalities and ill health, they reduce the time that patients spend in hospital on NHS care, and they do that, really, by contributing to developing the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 through integration of arts, culture, sport and leisure. So, it's not just a library for a library's sake, book lending, or sport for sport's sake—no, it's actually a well-rounded community offer there. So, when those services are withdrawn, of course communities lose critical support for health and well-being, but also they lose educational opportunities, they lose employment opportunities, and there's just a loss of social cohesion, because, libraries and leisure centres, they are those community hubs; they are anchor institutions within their communities. So, that is a real threat to the health and well-being of our communities, and I'm sure colleagues on the call and in person will elaborate on that.

Thank you very much, Jennifer. Who would like to add to that? Yes, Glenn.

Yes. Thanks, Chair. Adding to the previous comments, obviously, in terms of health and well-being and prevention, I think most people would agree that they add to that immensely in terms of the support to the community sector. But, from our perspective within Cwmpas, the economic development impact—. I think, particularly when you look at the ones that have moved away from local authority provision, by creating that economic anchor locally, providing the good quality jobs close to where people live in terms of from a foundational economy perspective, but also by creating an independent economic anchor away from the public sector, there's potential around the social value supply-chain work and procurement. You find that actually, they find that slightly easier, moving away from the sort of public sector procurement regime by becoming more independent, to try and get that spend to remain local as well. So, definitely prevention, the health and well-being agenda, all that I think most of us would agree with, but the power of the economic anchor institution, particularly in some of our communities where we have less impact by the private sector, creating economic value and economic wealth.

Would you say, Glenn, that that economic development advantage in the way that you describe it is fairly well established and evidenced?

I think so, because there are larger trusts out there now, more established. We've got some very small organisations just running one facility, and, obviously, they will have a smaller impact from an economic development perspective. But some of those larger ones out there, there are examples now, and if we use one like Awen Cultural Trust—. I'm not sure if you're going to be talking to Richard as part of the evidence—

Yes, yes.

—but, obviously, they started in Bridgend; they're now delivering services outside of Bridgend. So, they are growing as an anchor institution, but they remain anchored within Bridgend. So, there's a good example there of how they are growing and will continue to grow in developing their services as an economic anchor organisation.

Okay, Glenn. Thank you very much. Okay. Owen.

Thanks, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Firstly, I just fully concur with what Jen and Glenn have said there. I'll try not to repeat too much, because I think they've made the case quite strongly, but, certainly, I fully agree with the health and educational benefits that those facilities and provisions provide. I think one of the critical aspects of public leisure services in whatever format they may take—and there are different mechanisms and operating models across Wales—is that there is a duty on them, obviously, to be representative of the communities they are based in. So, it's an opportunity to ensure that delivery models are looked at through the lens of equalities and tackling the undervalued or underrepresented groups that you may not necessarily see if it's a sport-specific model or a commercial-specific model.

A couple of the other points I thought I'd pick up, just to be slightly different, I guess, in terms of the perspective, are, when we look at, say—. Sport Wales, for example, really push this principle of non-early specialisation in sport. We know that anyone can have a lifelong enjoyment of sport; they might just not necessarily have found the sport that most appeals to them. So, having multisport offers is really critical to that exposure to different sporting opportunities, which then bring about different skill sets both within a sport and physical context, but also different skill sets that set people up for life, from communication skills, leadership traits, self-confidence et cetera, and, very often, those local public leisure services are that multisport offer. It's central in terms of its location very often, but also houses a wide range of different sporting opportunities, in a non-competitive environment, that can be done at leisure, so I think that's a really important critical component.

And then secondly, that setting as well—we do know that it's really difficult to engage families—in family offers. Particularly through the pandemic, where we did see some positive traits in terms of physical activity trends, it was around family activities. And that particularly had an impact in terms of female participation in sport and, again, those local leisure services do create family offers, which you might not necessarily see in other services. So, I think that is also a really critical component that local leisure services can facilitate that we might not often see in other delivery models.

Okay, Owen, thank you very much. Anybody else like to add anything? No. Okay, let me move on then to ask you about the key challenges that local authorities and leisure trusts face. There are certainly many challenges around at the current time, but what would you say perhaps are the three—if you had to choose three, what would be the three key challenges facing local authorities and leisure trusts in managing those services at the moment and investing in community provision?

So, I don't mind going first.

Yes, Owen, yes, please.

Only because I can see that my mike is already on, so it'll save someone the job of having to switch it on and off. And I imagine that I'm probably likely to repeat what at least Jen will certainly say, and maybe others as well, which is that I think the three for me that stand out are the operating costs, especially those with swimming pool facilities. We've seen major increases, increasing costs, to facility providers in recent weeks and months, and so managing that is going to be a key challenge.

If I give you just one example: we run a capital funding scheme at Sport Wales, where local authorities and leisure trusts have been able to bid in over the last year. We'll be reopening that in April as it goes. There were a number of instances in the last round of that funding where Sport Wales agreed significant—hundreds of thousands of pounds in fact—awards to some applicants, but there was a match funding element to that and, just within the weeks when those applications came in, some of those leisure trusts and local authorities were not able then to see that through, because the picture had changed so dramatically for them. In one instance, that was a 90:10 split in favour of Sport Wales providing 90 per cent of the funding, but that 10 per cent was no longer able to be found just because of the increase in energy costs and inflation. So, you can see the pressures that are there.

Second is the issue around the cost of living. We've seen that impact individuals and communities quite heavily. That obviously has an impact in terms of their ability to spend or prioritise leisure investments. We've seen, through our quarterly Wales activity tracker that we do with Savanta ComRes, that there's a significant proportion of the population saying that they're changing their physical activity habits—they're having to source free or cheaper physical activity offers, or indeed reduce their physical activity to not doing it. That has an impact in terms of footfall and then the spend that those facilities are receiving. And then I'm sure there are issues around staffing, both retaining and recruiting staff into those facilities as well, and the cost-of-living awards that are associated with that.

So, that's almost—. Coming out of a pandemic, the sector was quite resilient. It did a lot of really innovative work to protect itself, and the Welsh Government invested in leisure services to protect them through the pandemic. We were probably in a slightly better place in Wales than most other areas of the UK, as a result of some of the work that had gone on through the pandemic. Unfortunately, that perfect storm of staffing, the cost of living and operation costs and inflation and the energy crisis that have come about now have almost, to an extent, undone a lot of that work, or at least set us back to a point—. We would have thought this would be a really positive, redemption year almost, if I can use that term, and, instead, it's just firefighting new and emerging challenges.

Thank you, Owen, that's very useful scene setting. Thank you very much. Carolyn. Carolyn Thomas wanted to come in at this point, Carolyn.

Yes, so, it's just on something that Owen said. So, there is capital funding available. Is that for decarbonisation to help with energy costs, such as cladding, solar or alternative forms of energy? And also I'd like to take the opportunity to raise with you now that we visited a community group that runs the Plas Madoc Leisure Centre in Wrexham—their energy costs have gone up from £6,500 to possibly £16,000 to £17,000, which is huge. And they thought they wouldn't be able to apply directly to Sport Wales, that they would have to do it through the local authority, even though they manage on their own, not through the local authority. Are they able to go direct to Sport Wales? I just thought I'd clarify while you're here.

Yes, of course. So, to answer those two questions in turn, yes, they are able to access funding for decarbonisation projects through that capital funding stream, but it isn't exclusively to that, so we have a number of—. We've funded athletics tracks, or pump tracks for cycling, so actual projects that are delivering new facilities—3G pitches, et cetera—through that fund. But we've also funded a number of projects that are around reducing energy costs and decarbonisation.

Where we've invested in solar panels, we've actually done that on the basis of a 50/50 split, because we know there's a return on investment to the facility. In a perverse way, actually, that return on investment is slightly better now, because of the increases of energy costs. Whereas the repayment might have taken seven, eight, nine years in the past, it's now going to take two or three years, because the energy costs are so high. But to answer the question, certainly, they are able access funding for energy costs. 

In terms of who can access the funding, it is specific to national partners that we fund, local authorities and national governing bodies, because those three groups are on our capability framework, so, giving us assurances around where we invest public funding. However, there is nothing, in theory, stopping those organisations that you noted there having conversations, and the local authority, an NGB, or a national partner coming in on their behalf, and we have funded a number of organisations, be they specific clubs, leisure trusts, community-run facilities. We have had community-run facilities and co-operatives in the past that have accessed that capital funding through local authorities, that have acted as the interim, both in terms of, then, supporting, and there are some VAT benefits, where actually going through the local authority is beneficial to the individual applicant as well. 

So, they should have those conversations with their local authority, and any governing bodies that may be relevant to the sports. But, certainly, they're able to access it via that third party. 

Okay. Would any of our witnesses like to add anything to what Owen said about the three main challenges facing these services at the moment? Jennifer?

Thank you. I definitely agree with everything that Owen has said. I just wanted to give a bit more context to two of them. In terms of the utility costs—and we really welcome the Sport Wales capital investment that Owen just talked about—I just wanted to give that context on the utility costs. There's obviously the high increases in gas and electricity prices that is causing the bulk of this challenge, but one of the main areas contributing to this is that a lot of our leisure and culture facilities are dated buildings. So, they're past their expiry date, if you can say that. And, also, the free energy service from the Welsh Government, and the audits that can be done by local authorities through that, have found that leisure facilities are consistently in the top five of high-emitting buildings from local authorities. So, obviously, that contributes to the scale of the problem, because, obviously, our buildings are unfortunately not as efficient as they can be. 

The second element to add to what Owen said around staffing, is we have, of course, from 1 April, a 9.7 per cent increase in the national living wage, which is the right thing to do, but to be able to afford to put a 9.7 per cent increase across all pay scales in an organisation adds a lot of pressure on the bottom line. So, in addition to the recruitment and retention challenges, there is that risk, and that threat, to keeping differentials, because, obviously, the national living wage increases it so much. So, that means that, in some cases, those on the national living wage, or just above, will get a 9.7 per cent increase, but that might not be for everyone in the organisation; they may get a 3 or 6 per cent increase, because 9.7 per cent is unaffordable across the organisation. And that's not to say that operators do not want to pay; of course they do want to pay that, it's just talking about budgets and the affordability of that. 

And, then, the third one, just to add to what Owen said, in terms of our key challenges, there's also the high inflationary costs in the supply chain. So, things like food—yesterday, I heard an example of tomatoes, and how much they cost now for one box, which, obviously, is a key ingredient in cafes and that kind of thing, but operators are unable to pass that on to customers. So, obviously, that puts another pressure on budgets. Thank you. 

Thank you, Jennifer. And Glenn.

Thanks, Chair. It was interesting that Carolyn said about Plas Madoc. I was talking to their chair last week, and she was making the point quite strongly that the main thing is the subsidy around the energy costs. And what I would say, in terms of energy reduction, from my knowledge, a lot of—particularly the smaller ones, the community pools, have done a lot over the last 10 years to reduce their ongoing revenue costs by looking at energy efficiency. But now, the main issue right here, right now, is the cost of energy and how they can cover that cost, particularly those swimming pools.

If I could add one other challenge, which is a little bit leftfield from what's been said so far, and that's governance. In terms of those independent trusts and organisations, and particularly those smaller, really focused in smaller communities, they work really hard initially to set up. Lots of them come from the starting point of setting up a pressure group to save the facility, and they have a board, and we can support them and train them to develop good governance. But good governance never ends, so, actually, the challenge is when board members, who are volunteers, leave and it's actually how you replace them and how you ensure that they're representative—I know that Owen talked about representation earlier on. But that is a constant need to support those smaller organisations, because without good governance, some of those facilities will fail at a point in time in the future. So, I think we've really got to keep an eye on the governance, and support the ongoing governance within those independent trusts.

Thank you very much, Glenn. Okay. A further question from me, then, before we move on to other committee members. In terms of closures of leisure centres and libraries and the picture over the last five years, perhaps you could set out what's been happening. But also, how the strain on local authority budgets has changed the context for the decisions they make on alternative models of delivery. Because, obviously, that's going to be a key aspect at the current time, but it has been, I guess, for some time, although, now, it's a stronger factor. So, could you just give us your view, really, of the picture regarding closures over the last five years—leisure centres and libraries—and the pressures on local authorities in terms of alternative models of delivery rather than in-house? Who would like to begin? Yes, Glenn.

Just from a library perspective, Chair, I think, within Cwmpas, we had a challenge with this, because where there were individual libraries and the communities came together to try and save and keep that facility open, when we were trying to support them, if there wasn't an economic model there, as part of a sustainable social enterprise, social business, that was always problematic. So, it was a lot easier when the library was linked to something else, when there was an economic potential model there that included the library—and Awen Cultural Trust is a good example of that—by putting libraries and culture and theatres together. And I know, for lots of those smaller single libraries—I'm thinking here of an example up in the Afan valley—the community worked really hard, but it was based on voluntary endeavour and grant giving and raising money constantly from funds, because there wasn't that economic model, a sustainable model there. So, that was a challenge.

I can't comment so much on the challenge from local authorities, but obviously, the budget restraints meant that lots of these sub-libraries—and particularly my knowledge is that, some of the Valleys communities and those further up lost their individual ones and had to travel further south to the main libraries. But I think that was the challenge that we saw, is supporting the local context, to save it, and very much dependent on voluntary giving to make that work and be sustainable, and that's difficult in the long term.

Yes. Sure. Carolyn, did you want to come in here, or is that an old hand raised?

Just following on from what Glenn said. Do you think that's more of an issue now—the sustainability of volunteers—post pandemic?

It's a difficult one, isn't it? What we found, actually, was an increase in people wanting to set up social enterprises, post pandemic. I think the impact on all of us as individuals made us question what we do and how we do it, isn't it. So, actually, we did see a lot of civic engagement throughout the pandemic—people stepping up to do things more community based. I would hope—I don't know, Carolyn, but I would hope—that there was that increase in volunteering and that that carried on after. But whether that is sustainable in the long term, to keep the doors open—. You will get volunteer fatigue, obviously, and people get older. Lots of our volunteers are retired and you might get 10, 20 years, but you've got to look for the new set of volunteers as well, haven't you?

Owen.

Just to come in on that last point, really, and it's slightly tangential because it doesn't necessarily relate to leisure facilities where there's going to be paid staff, but, certainly, we saw probably the opposite in terms of volunteers during the pandemic for the sports sector. We saw, naturally, obviously, quite a significant drop off in volunteering during the pandemic, because people were unable to be in sports clubs, but we've seen quite a lag in getting those volunteers back. And partly, that's around confidence, and partly around the fact that there's a generation of people who would have been volunteering and would have been upskilling themselves in terms of coaching and education, et cetera, through different sports, who missed out on 18 to 24 months of doing that. So, we've got a bit of a volunteer deficit in the sports sector. As I say, that's not leisure services, per se, but it probably does strengthen the argument about why leisure services are so important, because, actually, that volunteer sector within normal sporting clubs across Wales is still trying to play catch-up a little bit, which emphasises the pressures then put on the staffing and retention side of things for the leisure services themselves.

Okay. Thanks, Owen. In terms of libraries and the ability to generate income, obviously, they're in a different position because they're free to use, thankfully, are there any examples of libraries generating income that anybody's aware of, whether it's a cafe, or particular events that they might hold, with authors giving talks, or whatever it might be?

I think there will be examples. I would look to the larger organisations that run libraries and other bits of the business model, because those are the ones who are going to be more focused on making a sustainable business and will look for opportunities. I would assume that it's going to be in the larger libraries, in terms of where the footfall is higher, where, actually, you can make a return on that. I'm just thinking of local knowledge, and the libraries like in Haverfordwest, in terms of where the library was put in, and there is a cafe there, but that's just from local knowledge. But in those very small communities that fought to save their libraries, they are the difficult ones, because, again, you could put a cafe in there but you're not going to get the footfall from the cafe as well. So, there would be examples, I think, of larger ones, in more urban conurbations and where there are larger footfalls, and I think, as part of that bigger picture, where the business runs a small library, but subsidises that smaller library by running something else in another community to subsidise that smaller bit of the business that is never going to earn money and is not going to actually cover all of its costs either.

No. Okay. Thank you, Glenn. Jennifer?

Just to add to this and everything that has been said around this topic, I just want to emphasise that a facility closure is the last thing that you will see happening to the service, because, especially in the case of leisure and culture trusts—so, both from a leisure and library perspective—they've been working really hard with local authorities and councils to keep the buildings open. So, thankfully, we've only seen a very small percentage of facilities at risk of actual closure in Wales, although there is, of course, that risk that that will come in the new financial year. But there is that partnership working.

But I think the point that you made earlier, Chair, around the dependency on additional income, I think this is definitely a trend that we've been seeing in the past five, if not longer, years. And that is mainly because leisure and culture trusts specifically receive a management fee from local authorities to manage the service, and that management fee has stayed flat, so that's actually a real-terms reduction, or, in some cases, they've also been reduced in the past few years. Now, where there was a reduction, that was frozen during COVID in recognition, obviously, of the pandemic pressures, there is, of course, an intention to reduce the services further, and that makes sure that, actually, the operators become then more reliant on income from trading, so that means you are more reliant on your cafes or on your events taking place, in parks, summer events—those kinds of things.

I think that the final thing to point to on this is that the Welsh Local Government Association, they warned that Welsh local government is facing a £784 million budget black hole next financial year. Now, of course, the local government settlement was better than everyone anticipated, but that still comes to £400 million, so there's still at least £300 million, almost £400 million, of a gap, and that will, of course, impact on the ability of local government to invest in these services.

Thank you very much, Jennifer. Mabon.

That's a good question. If you think of smaller individual units—and I think of Harlech swimming pool back in the day from Gwynedd's perspective, and we supported them—the council budgets cost them quite a lot more to run those facilities just in terms of the overheads they've got across the business. So, they would make the call that they'd have to reduce their overall budget, and they'd look to which facility that they would make the political decision to close. I suppose the advantage in terms of getting the community to step up is setting up a legal structure that allows them to access capital from outside the local authority. That's the one advantage, because as a non-profit distributing company, whether they're defined as a co-operative or a social enterprise, they could develop relationships with third-party funders in doing that. The other advantage, obviously, is linking that facility back into the community, and the company developing their membership base, so they get members of the company who will become volunteers, who may volunteer within the business, on the board as part of that governance, or may volunteer to be part of the running of the service. So, there's an element of reducing the potential cost of delivering that service. 

There are some savings to be made from the public sector, but it is hard work, as we said earlier on. You have to have that sustainable business. Those swimming pools that went out 10, 12 years ago had to work hard to reduce their energy costs, to constantly look for funding, because the amount they were earning from charging to use the facility never quite made it to balance the books. So, it is difficult for single facilities. Like you say, there's probably a model where you run a number of facilities and some are cash cows and that subsidises the ones that are struggling. But that being said, there are examples of communities that are still running single-facility businesses, and they've been going for 10, 15 years. But I would say—and I'm sure you'll interview some of those running those—that it is a constant struggle, and they need the partnership between their communities, their volunteers, their members and their local authority as a potential supporter and funder, and third-party funders as well. 

Thanks, Glenn. Okay, Mabon? 

Just a very quick addition to what Glenn said. I think he's absolutely right in everything that he has said. The other advantage to a social enterprise running an independent facility is the charitable tax relief that they receive. The charitable national non-domestic rate relief of 80 per cent is quite significant on actually running a facility. So, that helps with the costs, notwithstanding, of course, all the other pressures in terms of actually managing a budget. But this does provide some relief. And in addition, being a charitable organisation, being an independent organisation, you are quicker in your decision making in terms of where you're going to invest in your facility, in the events that you are going to run and the partnerships that you have with your local community. That just allows for quicker, as I said, decision making and action as well in terms of developing services and programmes.  

Thanks very much. If none of our witnesses have anything to add to those particular matters, we'd better move on. Carolyn Thomas. 

Thank you. I'd just like to ask to what extent the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 provides the required statutory protection for public libraries in Wales. Do you think it is still fit for purpose to protect them going forward? 

Quite a specific question there. Who would like to answer? Any offers? Jennifer. 

Thank you. I am not an expert on the Act, but in preparation for this session we did go back to our members, who obviously manage libraries, just to get their views on this in particular, and they were quite clear that the Act in itself doesn’t prevent closures of libraries. It doesn’t necessarily protect a minimum level of service, because the Act applies to both England and Wales, and actually we have seen library closures in both nations—more so in England than in Wales. That means that, actually, the Act applies in both nations, but in Wales there are fewer closures, so there must be another contributing factor to actually keeping the libraries open. However, even in Wales some of our members have heard political voices saying that public libraries are not statutory, even though of course the Act requires politicians to decide how comprehensive and efficient they wish the libraries to be. So, in an extreme case you could argue that as long as there’s one library in a community then there is library provision. In that sense, it’s very difficult to say whether it’s effective or not, this Act, but there are definitely other contributing factors that value and support library services beyond the Act.

I'll follow that on, then, with whether you think there's sufficient evidence that local authorities are providing a comprehensive and efficient library service, as required by the Act, and whether there's adequate data to evaluate delivery. Perhaps that's something we could look at. Do you think there's a need to legislate in Wales to safeguard library services, and to ensure the provision of leisure services is also a statutory requirement, maybe, in Wales? Perhaps that will bring in others. So, if you could legislate that there was a statutory requirement for leisure as well as libraries, do you think it would make a difference?

There were a few questions there. Again, who would like to answer?

I can continue to answer for now, but other colleagues can come in as well. Thank you, Carolyn, for the question.

In terms of that first question around the Welsh public library standards, there is a great deal of evidence, I think, that libraries have a significant and valuable impact on people’s lives, but that isn’t necessarily always evidenced through the library standards, especially when you look at the impact that libraries have on health and well-being, and the many other programmes that they run from their facilities, specifically targeting families and early childhood, for example. In that sense, the case studies that are provided as part of those Welsh public library standards aren’t necessarily as comprehensive or touching on all the different elements that libraries provide. So, that is one thing that could be looked at for improvement.

In terms of statutory leisure provision, we find this a very difficult question, because we would ask the question why make it statutory, what is the purpose of making it statutory. Because as we can see with library services, it doesn’t protect them from closures. So, there is another way to value leisure and library services. That’s not to say we are against making it statutory, but we would ask the question, 'Why make it statutory?' and really explore that. What was the purpose of it? What would we want to achieve by making it statutory? And set some really understandable criteria for that. As I said, it doesn’t protect against closure or reduction or a minimal service delivery, so really the value of both public leisure and libraries is determined by the investment made into the service, and not by it being statutory or not. Any statutory provision would need to clarify that.

Okay, Carolyn? I think Glenn would like to come in on this point as well.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Carolyn. I think it's definitely worth considering if there's a need for a statutory footing in the provision of this. I'm just thinking, if we go back to 2010, the debates were that, actually, this isn't statutory—obviously, social services is statutory, education is statutory—and when the public sector had to make some difficult decisions, some of the first decisions were based around this agenda. If you think of us in Wales, we are a nation that created the well-being of future generations Act, and if we all agree on the whole well-being part of this and the prevention part of this work that we do, then maybe it does need to be on the same, similar statutory footing. When we go through difficult periods again, then if something isn’t on a similar statutory footing, this is the first thing where difficult decisions will have to be made. So, I certainly think that it’s worth considering that, based on the fact that we have got the well-being of future generations Act, and the emphasis that we put on this work as a society.

Thank you very much, Glenn. 

Can I just come in again regarding that?

Yes, Carolyn. Please.

I do remember that when we were looking at anything—I used to be a councillor—that was non-statutory, leisure was put there as non-statutory, but we didn't really, at the time, look at the 1964 Act. I think, maybe, that it does need strengthening. But you did mention the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the associated well-being goals. Do you think that they do provide the required statutory protection and support to safeguard leisure services in Wales? Would anybody else like to come in on that as well, to see if maybe that should be strengthened or applied more? 

It's interesting that my predecessor, Derek Walker, who would have been sat here as chief executive of Cwmpas up until 17 February, is now our future generations commissioner. Derek would have a brilliant view on this, I’m sure. My view, and it is a personal view, is that we have got great legislation as a basis, but actually, the impact of that legislation needs to be felt across all of the things that we do. So, I do think that there’s more work to be done. We can’t simply rely on that. Actually, it needs to influence our decisions and our appetite for legislation in other areas for us to achieve that. But I think that that’s more of a personal view, really, Carolyn. 

Does anybody want to make a bid for greater statutory protection for library or leisure services among our witnesses? Jennifer.

I just wanted to say, around the well-being of future generations Act, that we do believe that, actually, that provides some statutory protection for leisure and library services, because the associated well-being goals play a significant role, actually, in safeguarding leisure and library services in Wales. But that doesn't necessarily mean that that is recognised yet on a local level, with local government obviously implementing the well-being of future generations Act.

In our view, leisure and culture trusts contribute significantly to local authorities' statutory duties under the Act, mainly because, as a non-profit-distributing organisation, as a community organisation, they provide inclusive and accessible services to the community. That obviously aligns with the Act, in terms of actually making sure that there are health and well-being benefits to communities. And of course, the trust model is founded on that principle of community engagement, transparency, dedication to public benefit. So, that all aligns with the Act and its focus on long-term community development and wealth building.  

In that sense, we do think that the well-being of future generations Act provides a great statutory duty. But again, it's still relatively new. It's eight years, which is a long time in some contexts, but a short time when it comes to policy. But if we can act more on those statutory duties, we do think that leisure and culture, including library services, should be considered and invested in.

Thank you, Jennifer. Owen.

I fully agree that the Act gives a really strong basis and significant protection in terms of the narrative around these things. I think that the Act does empower communities and those who are running organisations to think long term, to see the broader benefits of the activities that take place in those facilities for the wider community. But ultimately, the decision to keep facilities open, or at reduced hours, et cetera, will come down to the perceived benefits of doing so against the bottom line and the pressures that are put on it.

I think that the Act does help to significantly broaden the perspective of what that bottom line is. I think that we have all come to the nature of it being a bit of a false economy to cut back on leisure services and library services. Ultimately, that's going to have a knock-on effect on education, health, social services, et cetera, in the longer term, which will potentially be more expensive to the public purse if we're having to deal with the impacts of not providing those benefits. But I think the Act is there, at the moment, more as a carrot than a stick, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It is about using the Act to empower social change and to think broadly and long term about these things. But, ultimately, I don't think, if we're being really honest about it, that people are making determined decisions to keep things open, or at a certain level of service, based entirely on the future generations Act. It's the here and now of what they're dealing with. But the Act provides the context, perhaps, to be more ambitious around the here and now than previously would have been the case.

Thank you very much, Owen. Lyn.

On this point, I think our sector's view in terms of the well-being of future generations Act is yes, it probably does provide sufficient statutory protection to support leisure services. The point that we would probably make, though, Chair, is that, in terms of the practicalities of supporting leisure and library services, from the perspective of community and town councils, the level of engagement by public services boards with community and town councils is very mixed across Wales. This, potentially, undermines the ability of the sector to help to prop up library and leisure services. It is happening across parts of Wales, but, again, stronger representation through the public services boards by community and town councils will enable the sector to engage far more with the agenda of supporting these very important services.

Okay, Lyn. Thank you very much. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks, everyone, for today. I just wanted to come in about the well-being of future generations Act. Are there any specific examples that you can cite where it's been used to safeguard services? Because one of the things that gets fed back to me is that there's a lot of talk about the well-being of future generations Act, but there's not much understanding of the relevance of it. I was wondering if you have some idea of that, then. Thank you.

Anybody able to point to any examples of the impact of the Act in safeguarding and protecting these services? Jennifer.

I believe—and I will need to look this up after this meeting, but we have looked at this. In 2019, we were responding to the future generations commissioner's consultation on 'Our Future Wales'. Leisure and culture trusts actively used the Act to report on their services and their programmes. One example is from Aura Leisure and Libraries in Flintshire, north Wales, who have included the well-being goals in their business plan, and they actually report on that. Obviously, that business plan goes to the council as part of the partnership work and as part of the conversations around fees, subsidy and those kinds of things. So, I believe it was Aura Leisure and Libraries that included it in the business plan, but I do know that leisure and culture trusts generally use the Act to report on their programmes in conversations with councils and local authority partners. Obviously, that then helps evidence the value of public leisure and library services and the investment that needs to go in for the next financial years.

Okay, Jennifer. Thank you very much. We'll move on to Mabon, then. Mabon ap Gwynfor. 

Who would like to respond to that question? Jennifer.

I do feel sorry for jumping in on every question—

Jennifer, not at all. Please do.

There are some examples, we believe, of where the standards framework has ensured consistency. One example is free Wi-Fi across Welsh libraries—and there's the question: would it have been possible without that standards framework and the core entitlement? But one of the cautions that we would argue for is, obviously, every community is different and every community has different needs as well, so if it's about equity of access, it's important that there's not a one-size-fits-all offer.

The other element to that, of course, is that there is great innovation happening across library services in Wales that can be applied in terms of programmes in other local authority areas as well. That isn't necessarily needed to be included in a standards framework, but is just generally in terms of sharing best practice. One example that I can—I mean, there are many examples—but one example to mention is again going back to Aura Leisure and Libraries in Flintshire in north Wales. They have been working with StreetGames on their Fit and Fed programme, which is a well-known school-holiday programme. And what they did last summer is genius, in my opinion; they made it a 'Fit, Fed and Read' programme, so they integrated the leisure and library services into that to obviously encourage reading, as well as being physically active, and merging those two services, which is a programme in itself that can be implemented in other local authority areas in Wales, and that's just an example of best practice and innovation. It doesn't necessarily mean that this needs to happen in every area, but it is something that can be shared through other means, through other networks, in terms of best practice sharing.

And the second example that I will mention, if I may—and it's just because I love this example so much—it's from Aneurin Leisure in Blaenau Gwent, a leisure trust that manages, again, both leisure and library services, and last year, they implemented sports libraries in all of the library services, and that actually means that the public can take out dumbbells or resistance bands from the library as if they were taking out a book, and actually, the staff in that library can actually direct the public to online exercise videos and guidance as well. So, again, an integration of library and leisure services. Again, this is not something that would come up potentially through the library standards framework, but it is best practice and innovation in library services and integration with leisure, which I think should be celebrated and recognised. So, I get quite passionate about this—apologies. I'll hand over to other colleagues now.

Don't apologise for being enthusiastic, Jennifer. It's something we're very keen on in the committee. Okay, would anybody like to add to that at all? We'll return to Mabon. Mabon.

Jennifer, should we ask you for an opinion on that to follow up on your earlier answer, to begin with, please?

Yes, of course, and I think Lyn will probably be able to provide more of the context from a local government perspective as well. But, one of the key things, when I went back to our members with the question generally around the frameworks in the library services, what they said is that what is missing is a national body to lead public library development in Wales. Now, I am, of course, aware that there is the society of chief librarians in Wales, but its purpose or accessibility by—especially, to charitable trust operators, it is sometimes not well known or understood. So, that means that actually, there's not a wide enough reach to support the development of library services on a local and regional level. I can't say whether a new national strategy would support that, because it obviously depends on how that strategy is then implemented on a local and regional level, but when it comes to best practice sharing, there are other ways to do that than with a national strategy.

So, of course, as Community Leisure, we have our members' networks where we share best practice. I know that CLOA, the Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association of Wales, they also have their members' meetings on both culture and leisure as well. The Welsh Local Government Association has networking groups as well. So, when it comes to best practice sharing, I don't think that the national strategy in itself would support it—there are other ways to do that. But there are, of course, other considerations for a national strategy, potentially from a local government perspective, that I'm unable to comment on unfortunately. I hope that helps.

Thanks, Jennifer. Lyn.

Yes, to follow on from Jennifer's comments, I would agree—I don't think it necessarily needs a national strategy, but perhaps an extension of the existing network to include community and town councils. We have got some really good examples of where community and town councils have taken on the assets of unitary authorities. The one that certainly springs to mind is the work that Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Town Council has done taking over 200 acres of leisure land and has developed a facility in the centre of Newtown now, and that has become used by many organisations, not only in Newtown, but in the wider hinterland. And one of the things that we've done through our networks within One Voice Wales is to, obviously, amplify that work to the community and town council sector. So, it'll be really helpful.

We are tangential to a lot of the discussions that are happening during the course of today, but there's certainly a far bigger role for community and town councils moving forward. We've got examples where community and town councils have funded community interest companies and where that has helped to develop a volunteer network to support the library provision in communities. So, the greater the opportunities for engagement with other bodies on this agenda, the better really.

Yes. There's always the question, of course, of who should be developing and driving this strategy, and there's Welsh Government, isn't there, there are the local authorities, there are the town and community councils, there are the various players, such as Sport Wales. Would anybody like to offer an opinion on which body would be the most appropriate to really make sure that the sort of improvements we'd like to see take place? 

Just because you've mentioned us there, Chair, what I would say is that I don't think that we would be the best organisation to lead any sort of review or monitoring of that. We don't manage or oversee any public leisure centres other than our own national centre here in Cardiff and the partnership we have in Plas Menai in the national outdoor centre. Obviously, if there was some sort of review or monitoring being conducted, it would seem to me that the WLGA probably would be the best-placed organisation, but I also don't want to commit them to something without them being in the room. But certainly, I'm sure that those on this call, and Sport Wales included, would be keen to add value to that and share the information we hold and the partnerships we have, but certainly, I don't think that we, as an organisation, would be best placed on that as the deliverer or partner.

No, okay. Let's go back to Mabon. Mabon.

Okay. Thank you, all, very much. Thanks, Mabon. Lyn, did you want to come in?

Yes, I'd just follow on from Owen there. I wouldn't want to put the WLGA up for being the lead delivery body, but it certainly feels like the WLGA and organisations like One Voice Wales—again, I don't want to put another organisation on the spot, but perhaps the Wales Council for Voluntary Action as well—as potential future delivers of leisure services and supporting library services. I'd certainly say, from our organisation's perspective, we'd certainly want to contribute to a review of leisure services, but it kind of feels like, from my perspective, that it's a conversation to be had between the WLGA, One Voice Wales and the WCVA, as to how this could be possibly taken forward in collaboration with Welsh Government. 

Okay. Thanks, Lyn. Jennifer, did you indicate that you'd like to come in here?

Thank you, Chair, yes. Just very briefly, in terms of the review that has happened in England, I think one of the positives that came out of that is that Sport England quite clearly stated an intention for public leisure to become an active well-being service, and to be recognised as such. And I think that is something that would be very welcomed by public leisure operators, to have that collective commitment to say, 'Actually, public leisure is more than sport, physical activity; leisure is actually there for health and well-being.' We worked together with the Welsh NHS Confederation last year to provide an offer to the NHS and public health professionals on behalf of leisure and culture, just to say, 'We are here, please work with us, use our facilities, use our skilled workforce, our reach into communities'. And, so, I would welcome that collaboration within Wales between Sport Wales, the WLGA, One Voice, and other organisations, to say, 'This is our vision for public leisure, and we will all work together towards that.' And that is something that Sport England did, in England, bringing together different organisations, to say, 'We all commit to this.'

Now, I would be careful with timelines, because, as we've seen in the past three years, that's been very difficult, and the timelines in that report from Sport England are quite out of date already because of everything that's happened with the cost-of-living crisis. But the commitment is there, and I think that is an important starting point for working together. But, as other colleagues have said, I would not want to commit one organisation on this call to start leading that, but if it can be a collective effort, we would very much welcome that. 

Okay, Jennifer, thanks very much. Time is pressing, as always, so we'd better move on. Sam Rowlands. 

Thank you, Chair. Morning, everybody. I hope you're enjoying the day so far. We talked a bit there about the policy framework and, perhaps, who should or shouldn't be responsible for setting some of that up. And then we've also mentioned so far in discussions, or touched on, delivery of that framework and whether it's local authorities delivering things in-house, whether it might be third sector, charities, the private sector or other trust-type models. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on what works best in terms of how these things should be delivered. And then, are there any real obvious examples where things haven't worked well at all that should be avoided like the plague?

Okay. Yes, Glenn.

Thanks, Chair. I think that's a good question. The first thing I'd say is, probably, that one size doesn't fit all, and you're starting from where the community are and their needs within that community. So, different models will suit different communities. I think that's the first thing to note.

I think there have been some bad examples. Because of that pressure from communities to save venues, difficult political decisions have had to be made. But I would argue you can't just divest—you know, we talk about asset transfer, but, actually, not everything is an asset; some things, potentially, are liabilities. So, I think if you're going to transfer an asset, then it needs to be that and it needs the support with it. You can't just hand that over to a fledgling community group where we can go in and help them to set up as a charitable incorporated organisation or a community interest company or a community benefit society; you need the ongoing support from the local authority to make that work, because without that ongoing support, it's highly likely that that will fail. So, I think. in terms of that very micro delivery model, it needs the support of the public body and it needs hand-holding to a point where it can be sustainable or has got a better chance to be sustainable. There are other models, like I said, which are the larger models taking on a number of different facilities, and it has been more facilitated from a local authority perspective. It's been more of that spin-out model and, again, that works in lots of areas and there's been learning from other areas where it could work better, I suppose.

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much, Glenn. Jennifer.

I absolutely agree again with everything that Glenn said. I would add to that that good practice is where local authorities and leisure and culture trusts, or whichever is the operator, adopt a partnership approach, where they co-design, co-develop the service to address common goals. And if you focus on public value imperatives, such as being purpose driven, community engaged, addressing social needs, then these partnerships will have led to a more sustainable service delivery.

In terms of what hasn't worked as well, it's where the relationship is treated as a client-supplier relationship, focusing specifically on low-cost services. So, again, putting purpose over low cost is really important there. And, as Glenn rightly pointed out, there are several models being implemented by local authorities across Wales for both leisure and library service provision. So, from our view, that includes in-house management, partnership with leisure and culture trusts and local authority trading companies as the main different models. And the most common approach at the moment in Wales is through a partnership with leisure and culture trusts. So, for local authority library service provision, in four out of the 22 local authorities, that's managed by culture trusts, and, for local authority leisure service provision, it's 11 out of 22 local authorities at the moment where that is managed by leisure trusts. We work with all of these organisations, and they very much want this to be a partnership approach with the local authority and do not want them to be treated as a client-supplier relationship.

Okay, Jennifer. Thank you very much. Sam.

Thank you for those responses. Lyn, I heard you mention earlier the example in Newtown in terms of where a town or community council—a town council in Newtown's instance—is taking on and seeking to deliver some of those services. I'm really interested in that in particular. If I'm really honest with you, I sometimes worry about some of our town and community councils, because there are no statutory duties on them about what they end up looking to deliver. But this seems like a really obvious area where they could make a big difference. Are there any other examples, do you think, in Wales where we see town and community councils delivering on these types of services and sharing some best practice in that area?

No, Sam, not specifically on library services, particularly because, under, I think, the 1964 Act, for community and town councils to get involved, there's got to be a partnering agreement, and I think that, for part of the reason you've already outlined, there's been a concern over whether community and town councils have got the wherewithal to run, certainly, library services. One of the models that we are seeing—and this is something that we are encouraging as One Voice Wales—is the enabling role that community councils and town councils can play in terms of providing funding to CICs. One that certainly comes to mind is Resolven. A number of years ago, the community council funded the establishment of a CIC, and that helped to retain the library provision in that area. I understand, though, that some of the problems with that kind of model is that, obviously, it's reliant on volunteers to maintain that service, and I understand that there have been problems in terms of the number of volunteers that are available to retain that service on an ongoing basis.

Chair, can I just carry this point on a little bit further—

Yes. Go on, Sam.

and ask Lyn to come back on this, because I'm genuinely really interested in the role of town and community councils in these types of services? Would you share, perhaps, my concern that—you mentioned the 1964, I believe, Act; yes, an Act—there's too much focus on the letter of that Act rather than the spirit of it and, therefore, we're missing a trick? If the spirit of the Act is able to be delivered by town and community councils, rather than the exact letter of the Act, as it were, do you think that, if that was looked at in a different way and approached in a different way, our town and community councils might be more willing to see how they can make that difference in our communities with these services?

I wouldn't disagree, Sam, actually. I think it would need, obviously, legislative change so that the community and town councils have got that power to be able to spend around this area. Yes, I wouldn't see that being a problem.

Great. Thank you for that. If I may move on, Chair, in terms of questions.

Yes. Go on, Sam.

I think you've probably answered some of what my next questions and comments would have been, which were about that relationship between local authorities and those providers. And, Jennifer, you mentioned that the client-supplier relationship being a hard-nosed relationship isn't necessarily the best thing. I was wondering also about the engagement with external bodies, like Sport Wales, or other external bodies, and how you see that working well, or where it works well, as some best practice, perhaps, with those external bodies.

Owen.

Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Sam. Just to give our experience, I guess, where this has been evident to us has been in that capital fund, in the process that I've spoken to, where, in particular, because of our capability framework and ensuring that we invest specifically and exclusively in organisations that have gone on that capability framework, then, leisure trusts, community council-run facilities and others are having to come through their local authority partners. Broadly, I'd say that that has worked really well. Now, obviously, we are talking about applying for funding, and there is a benefit both to the operator and the facility owner in that instance, so I guess everyone is a winner in that process. But, ultimately, we've had applications that have been done in partnership and worked really well.

There are definitely examples where there is a much closer relationship between the local authority and the leisure trust or the other partner that's delivered it than in other instances. But broadly, where Sport Wales has come into contact with those as a partnership, because they've both been applying at the same time, concurrently to our funding, it's generally worked well. And we've had relationships going back and forth directly with the deliverer, because we need to ascertain information around the projects they're putting forward, but also, then, the assurances we need from the local authority partner in terms of supporting those deliverers as well. So, it's worked well with us, and it seems that there's a good relationship between them, but, again, I am coming from the context of everyone is trying to get to a positive end goal of releasing funding and spending funding on good projects. So, I guess we haven't seen it where it's been done in a position of tension, I guess. But, certainly, the broad experience where it's involved us has showcased that, in many different ways of delivering, the relationship generally has been working quite well. 

Okay. Sam. 

Thank you for that, Owen. It makes sense and comes back to, I think, Jennifer's point earlier about when that relationship works well between those partner organisations, the external organisations can then link into it really well. That makes a lot of sense. I'm just going to quickly go through a couple more bits; I appreciate time is running away. In terms of the different delivery models, I guess some could be seen as more top-down and others could be seen as more bottom-up from the community. Have we seen a difference, especially post pandemic, in the usage and engagement with those facilities, depending on the way in which they are delivered, if it's a classic in-house delivery model versus a community-run-type model? Have we seen usage increase more or less across different models, do you know? If you're not sure, don't worry. 

I don't think—. No, I can see shaking of heads, I'm afraid, Sam. 

Okay. That's fine. And perhaps a final quick point is around the financial benefits and challenges associated with the different delivery models. I would have thought one of those benefits for the charity-based model would be the ability to apply for certain grants that, perhaps, an in-house local authority model may not. Are there other benefits and challenges that we would need to be aware of as a committee with the different types of delivery models, do you think? 

I think we heard about non-domestic rates as well. I think maybe Jennifer mentioned that earlier, Sam. I know there's the context of Neath Port Talbot councillors now, and their decision to bring services back in-house, rather than continue with a trust. I don't know whether anybody wants to comment on perhaps not the specifics of that decision, but whether we've reached a point where that might happen to a greater extent, and whether there are any particular pressures driving that, or whether there might be pressures driving in the opposite direction. Glenn. 

I think in terms of—. For a process to work successfully, that partnership approach in the co-design and co-delivery of transferring a service to an independent not-for-profit—. But there's also the political realisation that, if you do that, you lose an element of control in terms of the political decision making. You can't really have your cake and eat it in terms of control, ownership, management. And I think, sometimes, if you want that to happen, that's going to cause issues, because you need to set something up to give it the best chance of success, to free it away from bureaucracy and some of the red tape. And maybe for local authorities that have done it primarily to get the rate relief, there might be some that think, 'Well, actually, we can't afford that 80 per cent, and, if we spin it out into a charitable trust, we'd get the 80 per cent.' But if that's the only motivation, it's not more about the proactive, 'Let's do things differently, let's work, let's engage, with our workforce differently, let's give it a state of independence; we can still have a contract with that body to deliver services for us, so we will have a say, but we're not going to manage it.' I think that conflict sometimes can be problematic and could potentially lead to some problems where it's not going to work effectively. So, I think you have to be—. Elected members need to be realistic that, if they're going to do it, it's not just about saving, the bottom line of the 80 per cent mandatory rate relief; it's about giving the model—spinning that model out and giving it the best chance to have the freedom to be entrepreneurial and to make changes, and develop better services for the people in that community, really. 

Okay, Glenn. That's great. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, Sam, we'd better move on then. Joel. 

Thank you, Chair. I've just got a couple of questions, really, if I can, about social value and well-being. One of the things that I'd like to try and ascertain is whether or not local authorities are placing enough emphasis on social value, and, if they're not, what should they change about it. But then, also, how you would go about defining social value. I was reading an article now that there are over 300 metrics to define social value, and there's also a lot of criticism of those processes as well, and I just wanted to get some idea from yourselves there, if I can take the opportunity to. 

Owen.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Joel. I’m not sure I can speak explicitly to if local authorities place enough emphasis on social value; it’s probably a question better directed to them. But I suspect as a rule it will vary, and often that emphasis on social value is then tested by the financial challenges that, potentially, override them a little bit. I know that there are definitely examples where we’ve seen different areas of Wales exploring the social return on investment, and they’re aiming to better understand the impacts on health, well-being, education—the kind of thing that Jen spoke to in the opening discussion. So, it definitely is evident there, and I think it varies from different area to different area.

In terms of social value, you’re right, it’s a really broad way in which you can capture that. We have at Sport Wales—not explicitly to leisure services, but to sport in general—previously done a social return on investment study in Wales. That did show that for sport—again, not leisure services per se, but sport—you can see around a £295 million return on social value as a result of the impact of sport. It works out at something like £2.88 return for every £1 invested in sport. We’re in the process at the moment, actually, of having recommissioned Sheffield Hallam University, who are one of the world’s leading experts in this social return on investment study, to redo that work in Wales around sport, and there are examples where different local authorities will have done some of that work themselves, and different sports have done some of that work. So, there is a bit of a picture.

To me, in terms of that study, however, I wouldn’t necessarily say that is a absolute given in terms of those outputs. What it does do is really help create the conversations that are required between not just local authorities, but also health services, education services, about how we pool resources to see the preventative impacts of that funding, the preventative impacts of those collaborative programmes around social prescribing, around education and so forth, to maximise the impacts of leisure facilities.

One of the things that I would also stress is that one of the changes that we’ve instigated at Sport Wales is around our relationship with local authorities. Rather than working with 22 local authorities on sport development, in future we’re working at the regional sport partnership level. This means that we are working with those regional entities through local authorities, but also housing associations, third sector charities, universities are involved, sport deliverers—so, we’re bringing a broader sense to the table, essentially, bringing in different and novel expertise, who are coming at it from a different perspective. I think that is a way of creating some social capital in the decision making that involves sports decisions and physical activity decisions and investment that actually looks at things from that social perspective and what is the impact here going to be for the wider community in terms of health, well-being, education, housing and so forth. So, it’s a community investment in the social value of that sport investment, not just sport for sport’s sake. I think that is one model of delivery in future that will help in terms of shifting that emphasis onto social value, as well as the fundamental brass tacks of the funding involved.

All right, Joel? 

Does anyone else want to come in?

Jennifer.

Sorry, I made the mistake of trying to unmute myself. Apologies. I just wanted to very briefly add that social value is not a tick-box exercise during procurement, when we’re looking at leisure and library services and working with an external operator, but needs to be embedded throughout the partnership in the way that Owen just described. I just wanted to add one statistic, because Owen got us on to statistics, and I thought, ‘Well, let me add to that.' So, we know that, from data from 4GLOBAL through DataHub, leisure trusts in Wales specifically create £101 of social value per person using their facilities and services, and that is measured through savings to the NHS, reduced crime levels and improved mental and physical health of communities. Now, that’s a statistic from 2019-20, so they have updated their model since then, but I imagine that the total value will actually have increased rather than decreased when they’ve improved their model. But I just wanted to give that as a context to this conversation. 

Thank you very much. And Glenn.

Thanks, Chair, thanks, Joel. It's a good question, because social value means different things to different people, doesn't it? I'm going to comment on the economic part of social value and procurement, as opposed to the social outcomes of delivery of the service. I think that it's been like wading through treacle over the last 10 to 15 years to improve our procurement processes, to make them more effective, to keep more money and more spend local and impact on our communities. But we have seen some changes. There is some good practice in local authorities, where they now publish the amount that they invest within the radius of their local authority area, or in south Wales et cetera. So, that's good. But we, as Cwmpas, want to go further, really, in terms of looking at the social value of budgets, and we want to look at where there are supplier voids. Because, from a social business perspective, we're trying to get local authorities and public bodies to put procurement opportunities out there for social businesses to respond to. In the worst-case scenario, a commissioner will say, 'Well, we put it out, and nobody responded', and I would say, 'Well, I could have told you that, because we know the supply chain.' So, I think that there are opportunities to go further, in terms of looking, where there are supplier voids, where we can work with a locally established anchor institution, be that a leisure trust or a.n.other social business—work in a proactive way to be able to respond to a future tendering process.

To me, public bodies, local authorities, health boards should look and say, 'We've got £100,000-worth of spend that goes outside of the authority, outside of the country for A. How can we turn that into 10 jobs in Kidwelly?', and look at it in a much more proactive way. So, that's where we are coming from, from a social-value perspective, in terms of trying to turn that budget into economic outputs and jobs and local opportunities through the foundational economy.

Thank you very much, Glenn. Okay, Joel. Are you content?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Well, just with regards to that, then, as with most things, there is always that lack of data. Is there a worry then, that that could lead to over-generalisations of the social value, if that makes sense?

There's always an issue of how we measure, isn't there? We need a measuring system that actually is transparent and actually that everyone can sign up to. So, there has been work done through the procurement process to try and solve that issue—the TOMs framework, which I'm not overly au fait with, so I'm not best placed to talk about that. But I think, throughout the improvements in procurement, that Welsh Government have been looking at trying to solve that issue, really, in terms of how we actually measure social value in a way that is fair across the board.

But I think there's probably still more to do. The social partnership legislation—I'm not sure if it has become a Bill yet, in terms of I know that it was going through final stages. But, hopefully, that'll be the next form of improvement within procurement within Wales as well. 

Thank you, Chair. Just one more question there. We've heard—

Just before you—

—a lot now about how the alternative models—

Just before you do—

—of delivery, and you mentioned there about the—

Joel, just before you do, I think Owen wanted to come in on this.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, only very quickly. Owen.

Yes, sorry. I didn't mean to stop you speaking there, Joel. Just to say, I think that you're really right in terms of not over-generalising the social return on investment. Just to give some context to the study that we have done—and again it's in a sport rather than leisure capacity—it's a model that Sheffield Hallam have put together, which is pretty internationally renowned now, insofar as they have done it for ourselves previously, Sport England, Sport Northern Ireland, in New Zealand and others. So, there's a history to that particular model.

Now, obviously, what you put into it will change, and there's always new evidence gathered. What we've been really concerned with and focused on in the past is to ensure that we're quite conservative in terms of what goes in there, and, if there isn't a robust data set, to rather rule it out—so, it's always a conservative reporting figure—but also to treat those data and that evidence as a platform for discussion around what can be improved, and where the evidence for sport and leisure can be used to enhance the value to other policy portfolios, rather than a piece of evidence to say, 'Look how wonderful sport is.' It's not there to justify an outcome. It's there to showcase what can be done if we work in partnership. So, I think it's not just the robustness of the evidence, but, actually, why and how we are using it, and being really clear and upfront about that in the first instance.   

Okay. Joel.

Yes. And it was just to say then—. We've heard about alternative models, such as the anchor institution, institute—whatever—and social enterprises, and I just wanted to get some idea of to what extent that is now becoming the default option for local authorities. Where they are identifying that as the go-to thing now, does that necessarily help increase social value? And then, does that necessarily help, as you mentioned, about being proactive to see what else is out there? I know Lyn mentioned about town and community councils, and I've got to declare here that I am a community councillor. To what extent, then, is that almost siphoning them off so they're not even being looked at as an alternative? I know, with my own council, they've got a good programme, with things like RCT Together, where they're looking at doing that. It just feels as if this is like the new phrase, or the new word, 'Social enterprise models are the way forward', but, then, it doesn't necessarily mean that alternative methods are being looked at, if that makes sense.

Jennifer will probably come in on this, as well, because she's got the stats from a Welsh perspective on what the actual outlook is on it. From my perspective, we saw a lot of activity in this space from 2010 on in terms of where there were budget constraints and looking at different ways. My perception is it's slowed down slightly now, and if I think of RCT, just thinking of the community swimming pools in the parks, for example, there was a lot of drive to try and look for a community response to open the paddling pools. So, we've gone through that now. I sense that, actually—and the numbers will probably back this up—we've gone through that barrier now in terms of there might be some others that are still going to fall into play, and, again, we don't know in terms of further budget constraints in the future, but it's almost—. We've got a nice mix now of different models out there, single-facility models run very much by the local community, or more of the larger trust models that have been facilitated on a transfer basis by the local authority with a stronger board. There may well be opportunities for things to happen in the future, and there will be some individual facilities that went out early as sole delivery model social enterprises that might go into a larger trust. That would be an interesting dynamic, because they jumped before the rest of the facilities went. But I'll probably bow down to other colleagues, and Jennifer in terms of the numbers across Wales, if that's okay.

Thank you very much, Glenn. Jennifer, if you could be quite brief, we only have a few minutes left, I'm afraid. Jennifer.

Yes, of course. So, as Glenn mentioned, alternative models are widespread in Wales, and, as he mentioned, this started around 2010. So, originally, the larger trusts were established for these financial savings that we talked about earlier, but, actually, in the last few years, they have become popular because of that social value and being embedded in all parts of the organisations. Because, especially the larger trusts, they operate on multi-year contracts as well, so those contracts are renewed with the recognition that, actually, working with a charitable trust model delivers that wider social value to the community.

Again, as Glenn mentioned earlier, that aligns with that foundational economy objective from the Welsh Government and local government perspectives as well. Working with a charitable operator for your leisure and library services actually allows a local authority to then allocate resources and focus on other essential services knowing that their leisure and library services are in good hands and actually will be looked after for the benefit of communities.

Thank you very much, Jennifer. We'll have to move on, I'm afraid. Jayne, I think we've dealt with some of the costs and exit strategies, but perhaps the last question is one we ought to get an answer to.

Yes, thank you, Chair. It's been really helpful, and everybody's covered a lot of the points that I wanted to raise. But it's just a final point, really, around the future outlook for local authority leisure and library services, and what steps you think should be taken to ensure that those services are placed on a firm and sustainable footing for the future.

Who would like to begin on that? Jennifer.

Sure. Thank you, Chair. We have five steps that we identified, but I'll try to be brief. The first one is probably the most obvious one in terms of addressing the financial challenges faced by the service, and that can be done by ensuring that local government is properly resourced, because it is the key partner in leisure and library services, whether it delivers them itself or it works with a charitable operator or another model, obviously, taking into consideration increased costs of living and inflation.

I think the second key element is that we need to ensure we integrate leisure and library services with other services, including health, education, social care, to create that more holistic and person-centred approach to public well-being. The third one is actually investment in decarbonisation and modernisation of leisure and library facilities. I think that's really important to ensure that they remain attractive, accessible, but also environmentally friendly, and ensuring that we achieve our net-zero goals. And the fourth one—apologies, I made a mistake; it's only four actions, not five—the final one, is actually making sure that we continue to support and share best practice of alternative models of service delivery, whether it's the larger trusts, the smaller independent charities or the in-house delivery of local authorities. They have really good practice as well. It's making sure that we focus on that community engagement, social impact and reinvestment of profits into the service for community wealth building.

Thank you very much, Jennifer. Owen.

Just to show a bit of Sport Wales's contribution to those things that Jen has just mentioned there, that decarbonisation agenda is one that's really high up on our priorities. It's one of our main business plan priorities for the year for the sport sector in general. Some of that will involve capital investments into those facilities we're discussing, which we've previously done in the last financial year, and we will be having the opportunity to do so again next year—not just into leisure facilities, but actually sports clubs and the sports organisations across Wales, and I think that's a really important thing. We've recently launched a sustainability strategy as well, so there are opportunities for us to have more dialogue with partners around that.

And then, secondly, to repeat some of the commentary I said previously around the growing importance of regional sport partnerships, that's very much the point that Jen is making around the need to integrate sport and leisure with decision-making around health, education and so forth, and so making sure that sport and leisure facilities are an integral part of the solution to some of those problems and are thought about at the start of that decision making. I know there are a number of members of the committee here who are really supportive of that agenda, but it isn't the first thought when it comes to budget pressures and it's the last thought when it comes to problem solving. But, rather, at the forefront of decision making, that ultimately can help alleviate some of those budget pressures in the longer term if you are looking at it through that future generations lens, because it actually is providing preventative healthcare solutions and empowering individuals to reach their potential in other areas. So, that sport partnership approach, bringing together different organisations with expertise, insights and knowledge across different sectors, to be able to create innovative sport solutions at a regional level is a really important aspect of our work, moving forward.

Okay, Owen. Thank you very much. Lyn.

Very quickly, Chair, one of the things that I think would be helpful in improving the relationships between unitary authorities and community and town councils—. Our cousins across Offa's Dyke, the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, a couple of years ago developed a framework for the delivery of local services and place shaping. I think that sort of development would be particularly helpful in terms of looking at how community and town councils can support these very valued services, moving forward.

And just to pick up that, in terms of where community and town councils consider perhaps taking on an asset or a service previously run by a local authority, it's very much social value that determines their decision making, because what they don't want to see, for example—. I can think of one: Pontypridd Town Council recently came to us and said, 'Look, it's not about the cost; we don't want to lose the community centre in this particular area because it's being used by so many voluntary groups within that community.' So, moving forward, some sort of framework developed, or the one that's been developed in England, and perhaps look at how we can develop that within a Welsh context.

Okay, Lyn. Thank you very much and thank you, all, very much. Thank you, Jayne. So, I'd just thank all our witnesses for coming in to give evidence during this evidence session this morning, and you will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay, could we also, before committee breaks, deal with item 3, which is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the following items of this meeting: items 4, 5, 6 and 11? Is committee content to do that? Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, all, and we will break until 10:50.

Okay, then, the committee returns to public session for item 7 on the agenda today, which is our third evidence session with regard to our work on the right to adequate housing. And I'm very pleased to welcome, joining us here in person, Faye Patton, policy and project manager for Care and Repair Cymru. And joining us virtually is Jim McKirdle, housing policy officer for the Welsh Local Government Association, and Laura Courtney, head of policy and external affairs with Community Housing Cymru. So, welcome to you all. Perhaps I might begin with some initial questions, and, firstly, whether Wales needs a right to adequate housing incorporated into law and what that right means to you as witnesses. Who would like to offer us an initial answer?

Happy to start, Chair.

Okay, Jim, yes.

The WLGA support the incorporation of the right to adequate housing as a principle, and I think that's where the conversation really kicks off then about what exactly we mean by that right to adequate housing. And I think, probably for everyone who's worked in public services, public policy, we're used to seeing that good housing or bad housing is a determinant of good or bad outcomes for people. So, for me, the right to adequate housing isn't just an end in itself but is a method of producing good or better outcomes for everyone. And that can be about health, it can be about children's educational opportunities, the opportunity to take up additional skills and employment, and a whole range of outcomes. So, for me, the conversation really starts there, about what we mean by 'adequate' and what that can then achieve by way of outcomes in a whole range of other public and private sector spheres.

Okay, thank you, Jim. And Faye.

So, I agree with Jim in the sense that, at Care and Repair, we agree that there should be a right to adequate housing incorporated into law. In terms of what 'adequate' means from a Care and Repair perspective, our client group are older, tend to be owner-occupiers, and so around 85 per cent of clients we help live and own their own homes. So, for us, that means a home that is warm, safe, secure, accessible, free from hazards and, crucially—and this is why I think that having a right to adequate housing is really important—that meets the needs of the person living in that home. And then, in addition to that, because of our client group, obviously, tending to be older, I think that also means a right to stay in their home if they choose and that they're empowered to do so and supported to do so, if that's their choice.

Okay. Thank you very much, Faye. Laura.

Thank you. Yes, CHC wholeheartedly supports the principle of the right to adequate housing. The vision of the housing association sector is a Wales where good housing is a basic right for all. Good housing, with the right support where it's needed, is crucial for every person or family whatever their circumstances. We all need somewhere safe, warm, comfortable and secure to live—somewhere that's adaptable to our changing needs and connected to our work, education and public services. So, we hope that a legally enshrined right to adequate housing could act as a catalyst to addressing some of the fundamental challenges we face in Wales, which could be achieved by requiring Welsh Government to take a comprehensive strategic approach to tackling the barriers that stand in the way of people accessing adequate housing—so, a kind of golden thread that runs through all the relevant policy areas, including, but not limited to, health, social care, regeneration, planning, achieving net zero, environmental management, and help for individuals to maintain financial resilience, and so as that catalyst for strategic delivery. I can say more about that as we go through the session.

Yes, okay. Thank you, Laura. Just in terms of deliverability and what that right would mean in practical terms, to what extent do you think that there would need to be clear political and financial commitments before a right to adequate housing would really deliver those very practical benefits to people in Wales? Jim.

Again, I'm happy to start, Chair. I think it's absolutely critical. And perhaps even going a stage back from that, there needs to be the development of a consensus and understanding and agreement across all the stakeholders about what we actually mean. In our submission, and I've seen it elsewhere, there are seven conditions suggested by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which we think provide a good framework for at least the start of a discussion about what a definition of 'adequate housing' might actually look like. And it certainly acts as a catalyst, then, for those discussions that Laura and Faye have described to take forward so that we build that consensus.

So, I think once we've started that journey—and I would say from the outset that there needs to be greater engagement with stakeholders than we've had the opportunity to have so far in order to develop that consensus and understanding—it's only then that we can start to build the momentum and the clarity about what will be required in order to deliver on those seven conditions, or whatever else we decide is the right answer for Wales. But, I think absolutely clear political and financial commitments will be required, and leadership, I think, so it's not just about politicians and Welsh Government delivering on that clarity and leadership, but also through organisations like local authorities, and housing providers are happy to give advice—a whole range of stakeholders across public services and other services—in order to have that understanding and then to play their part in delivering those rights. 

Okay. Thank you, Jim. Would anybody like to add to that? Faye.

Yes, I'd like to add to that. So, legislating, obviously, will take time. So, the question was about the commitments before a right to adequate housing can be delivered, and I think in the meantime there is lots of work that can get started on some of the fundamentals that we need to know to realise a right to adequate housing. And that, I think, means ultimately understanding exactly what the current landscape of housing is in Wales. So, for example, the Welsh housing condition survey was last conducted in 2017. That showed that 18 per cent of homes in Wales had a category 1 hazard present. And I anticipate—. Obviously, 2017 was before COVID, before the cost-of-living crisis, so I anticipate—and we're seeing it in our service delivery ourselves, actually, at Care and Repair, where clients are coming to us with increasingly complex needs and increasingly complex hazards present in their home. So, I think having a housing condition survey that is not just about what the state of the housing stock is like but actually the people living in those homes as well and what their needs are. So, for example, an older person living in a terraced house, for example, in the Valleys, might have increased frailty, so they will have very different needs to someone on that same street living in a home. But actually, understanding the needs of the people living in the housing stock and the state of the housing stock is really important to actually enact a right to adequate housing. 

And I think that comes through, obviously, the survey, restarting the Welsh housing condition survey, but also engaging with the housing sector, and specifically engaging with the needs of those who are the most affected by poor housing. So, this right talks about targeting vulnerable groups, and Care and Repair's client base is essential in that. We help older people but also four out of five of our clients identify as being disabled. So, having conversations with those people who are living in homes that are already not meeting their needs and then what they need in order to be supported to live safely and independently at home I think is integral. And I don't think it's an either/or, or it's a before or after; we can start those conversations now. It's not about having a right and then get going, there's a lot of scoping and groundwork to do before we start that. 

Okay, Faye. Thank you very much. Laura.

Thank you. Yes, I couldn't agree more in terms of using the time now to build an understanding of where the challenges are. I agree with everything said, also, in terms of increasing the supply of the social housing side, the barriers that exist within the planning system, the sustainability of the affordable housing contractor sector that we work with, and the way in which policies that are trying to help us to achieve our ambitions, say, for example, in terms of reaching net zero, environmental protection and tackling the housing crisis, the way in which they're currently working together or in which they might be working against each other and not providing the clarity that's needed. 

As I've said before, we would hope that the right to adequate housing would mean that there always has to be a Welsh Government, cross-Government strategy to address the challenges we face in housing, but there is absolutely no need to wait for the right to be implemented; we can kind of model that now. So, we can set the strategic direction, in particular with regard to bold strategic action on those barriers to increasing housing supply, which is so critical, and working across policy silos there; investment and a real understanding of challenges within the workforce, in particular in relation to homelessness support and care staff, and clarity on the road map and investment that is going to be provided in housing to enable us to reach net-zero targets. 

So, these are the urgent challenges of today, and, as I say, working in a parallel track with the development of the right to adequate housing, we can model an approach going forward that might be realised through the progressive realisation proposed by the Act. 

Okay, Laura. Thanks very much. Just to remind committee members with us virtually that, if you wish to come in at any time, just raise your hand physically rather than virtually. Okay, over to Carolyn Thomas, then. Carolyn. 

How does the right to adequate housing align with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?

Okay, who would like to respond to that? Faye?

Okay, yes, go on. It aligns really well with the well-being of future generations Act. Improving housing stock obviously links to healthier health outcomes for people, a more equal Wales in terms of improving accessibility of housing support, and that sort of thing. And if we continue to work in line with policies we're already delivering, or implementing, like the optimised retrofit programme, for example, we will be improving the housing stock in a calm and friendly way as well that would result in a more resilient Wales. 

The point I want to make, though, about the well-being of future generations Act, and housing specifically, is that I don't think the housing stock is seen as a national asset, especially in the owner-occupied sector. So, we see it every day—we see thousands of properties that are unfit for future generations, because we don't see the housing stock as an asset to be improved in this way. And, actually, improving the housing stock now, and getting homes up to standard, in condition, actually is improving the housing stock for future generations. 

Also, we have an ageing population in Wales, so we also need to be talking about the housing stock in terms of future generations of older people, and what their needs are going to be. And we are already seeing that in terms of our service delivery at Care and Repair. So, for example, we help people who are 60-plus, or 50-plus who are living with sensory loss, but, actually, 82 per cent of our clients are over 70. So, we're already seeing that demand within our system, and having to meet that increasing demand. So, when we're thinking about future generations, we also need to be thinking of the cohorts of people who are going to be coming through our housing system, and who is going to be living in it. 

Yes, thank you very much, Faye. 

Can I just come back on that? Obviously, at the moment, it's for Welsh Government to provide—they're aiming to provide 20,000 low-carbon houses for rent—I think it's for rent. We've been discussing previously that, to do that, it's very costly, and should they maybe reduce the standard, basically. So, for a really good, low-carbon house, the passive house standard costs £230,000, but if they reduced the standard, it could be £195,000, but they're insisting on carrying on with—. In a way, I guess they are looking at the future generations there, but in the private rented sector, are you saying that 85 per cent of your clients are in their own homes, so, maybe look more at helping them to invest in their own private housing stocks? Just to get clarity, sorry, Faye.

No, that's absolutely fine. So, Care and Repair—specifically, our support is targeted at people who are owner-occupiers, who own their own homes, who are living in their own homes. But, increasingly, again, because of the way that people are living, we are starting to see more people in the private rented sector as well. So, those people in their sixties and fifties that we help, we are seeing a marginal increase of people who are in the private rented sector. 

In terms of decarbonising owner-occupied housing, you're right, that's a massive challenge, and, specifically, our client group is really people on a low income who would need support. I know that the Chartered Institute of Building have done some interesting work on incentivising decarbonising and retrofitting for the owner-occupied sector in cases where they can afford it. But, yes, there would need to be support for owner-occupiers, in our context anyway, to decarbonise and retrofit their homes. I've not seen the proposals for the new iteration of the Warm Homes programme, for example, but I know that that's going to include, or I hope that that's going to include more carbon-friendly and carbon-neutral options within that that would be supporting people on low incomes.

Okay. Carolyn, I think Laura wanted to—

Is there anybody else?

Yes, Laura wanted to come in, I think. Laura.

Thank you. Yes, it was back with regard to the future generations Act. I completely agree in terms of the capacity of this to contribute to the realisation of that Act. Also, we would hope that it would work in a similar way, which would mean that everything is seen through a housing lens, as the future generations Act helps us to see through a future generations lens. And also happy to make comment in terms of decarbonisation and that 20,000 homes target. I know that we're going to be talking about the challenges to increasing housing supply. So, happy to touch on that for the social housing sector if that's helpful.

Well, my next question would be: how would this right to adequate housing interact with the existing housing policy and legislation? So, that would lead you into that response.

Absolutely. I think the intention of the right is essentially that it provides a strategic drive for the delivery of current existing housing policy and legislation. So, it creates that right strategic environment in which to deliver it and helps us to assess the extent to which existing policy and legislation is working effectively. Obviously, it needs to underpin and enable partnership working arrangements, and it will really require Welsh Government to take a leadership role in creating that whole-system approach. Also, making sure that communities in Wales have a voice within housing policy and planning to really put the communities at the heart of this.

In terms of the existing policy in relation to the 20,000 homes and development, it's incredibly difficult to build homes at this point. There are significant barriers. We're in the centre of two storms, really. One of personnel and costs—the inflationary environment—and one of a complex system of policies that really needs completely unpicking to make sure that it's working in a streamlined way. So, as I say, I would hope that the right to adequate housing would create that strategic environment and make sure that we're always seeing all of our ambitions in Wales through a housing lens to make sure that, in particular those around environmental management and around climate change, are taking advantage of the opportunities to work with the housing sector to make sure that we can increase the pace and scale of delivery of the affordable homes, in particular from our perspective, that we desperately need within Wales.

Jim.

Thank you. Just to add to what Laura's said there, I think the question is about legislation and about policy. To touch on legislation first, I think housing is an area where there's been quite a bit and is quite a bit of current legislative activity, as you as committee members will know, around the—[Inaudible.]—homelessness, for example, and currently, around the implementation of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. And I think experience—even those recent examples—shows that it can be quite complex in terms of the way that the interaction between different pieces of legislation can work. So, I think it's an excellent example where we need a good level of detailed conversation and engagement with stakeholders before we run up against implementation problems. So, that certainly underpins the need for that engagement.

In a policy sense, I think that housing is a rich mix of devolved and non-devolved issues. So, we've got the headline devolved matters related to housing here in Wales, but there's no getting away from the very real influence that non-devolved matters, such as welfare, have for very many people in Wales. I think to unpick things like affordability and other aspects of what a prescription around adequate housing might look like, we've got to front up to the mixture of policy implications on both a devolved and non-devolved basis and those complexities.

Thank you very much, Jim. Is that okay, Carolyn? Thank you very much. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you for joining us this morning. What impact do you think a right to adequate housing is likely to have on reducing inequality, and what groups do you think would benefit the most from that?

I'm happy to go first. I think the right to adequate housing has the capacity to benefit all groups of people who experience inequality. I think that would need to be explicitly baked in to the legislation from the start. I understand that progressive realisation would mean the Bill, as proposed, would set a broader ambition, and the nature of implementation would be determined over time, but we would advocate that tackling inequality should be one of the core principles of legislation.

One example in which this might be possible in terms of tackling inequality would be in helping us to ensure that we're building the right affordable homes for people in our communities—for example, whether larger family homes, which are needed to tackle overcrowding, which is a key objective of the antiracism plan for Wales, are being built where they're needed, and also concerns about housing inequality for young people, who are more likely to need one-bedroom properties. We have local housing market assessments that assess the needs of people, but this would really help us to take that bird's-eye view across what's being delivered in Wales, to try and work out the way in which we really are providing the homes that people need through the social housing programme.

And also, as I've mentioned before, when we've spoken to housing associations around this, they really felt that this would be a way to help to ensure that the planning policy and housing policy as a whole has an increased representation of tenants and partners and stakeholders across the piece. I'm sorry, not tenants—I mean communities. We're often talking about the people who live in our homes, but for this, it's really communities across Wales and what they need in terms of homes.

Thank you very much. Jim, I think you wanted to come in as well.

To add to what Laura said, hopefully without repeating too much of it, I think one of the major impacts will be on those who are not currently housed at all. We've got in excess of 9,000 people currently in emergency temporary accommodation provided by authorities in Wales, and that number is increasing every month. We've got a huge number of people without access to any kind of housing at the moment, so trying to reduce that inequality will be a key driver. Laura's mentioned the significant mismatch in the supply of housing—single-person accommodation or larger homes for households—out there. We see that, certainly amongst that cohort of people who are in emergency temporary accommodation at the moment who are in need of single-person accommodation, that, frankly, doesn't exist and isn't affordable in many areas of Wales at the moment. I think that that strategic perspective on what the needs of our current population are is going to be very welcome in taking that holistic approach, again, that Laura described earlier on.

I think we've seen, through some publications—I think it was the most recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report, 'Is Wales Fairer?', which came out in 2018—a focus on the conditions for older and disabled people in Wales, where there's a lack of information about the supply of adequately adapted or adaptable homes, which I'm sure Faye will go on to talk about as well. I again go back to the impact of non-devolved issues here. We've seen also, through that EHRC report, a focus on UK-wide welfare reforms, which have disproportionately had an impact on different sections of our communities and the poorest in society, particularly women, disabled people, ethnic minorities and lone parents. I think having that in the mix and seeing how the right to adequate housing can try to address some of those inequalities will be an important part of making progress.

Thank you very much, Jim. Faye.

I'm very happy to pick up on what Jim said about accessible housing. As I mentioned, care and repair services are targeted at older, vulnerable owner-occupiers, and, actually, four out of five of our clients identify as being disabled as well. So, I think there are huge opportunities here, and having this right in law, I think, will have a really big impact on accessible housing. For example, we've known for a really long time that we don't have enough accessible housing in Wales. The Wales Audit Office predicted that, in about 2025, so in two years' time, there'll be around 50,000 people aged 65 and older who are going to need housing adaptations, essentially. Care and Repair are seeing that as well, in the increase in demand for our service. Last year, we completed around 20,000 home adaptations, which was the highest amount of home adaptations we'd completed since 2014. So, we're seeing that demand increase.

But we still don't have enough accessible housing, and so I think having a legislative right to adequate housing would really drive forward the impetus to actually start tackling this problem that we know exists. Because having the right would require the Welsh Government and other public sector bodies to make a plan to meet this additional demand that we know is going to be there. This could be then reviewed, organisations like Care and Repair could work with the Welsh Government or other organisations. And if we continue to not have enough accessible housing, under this right in law, we would then need to justify why we didn't have enough accessible housing. So, it's that accountability—this mechanism of having the right in law provides a mechanism for accountability as to why we're not meeting the needs of older and more vulnerable people in Wales when it comes to their housing. That would really help us deliver better outcomes for older people living in their own homes.

The other point I wanted to make, if that's okay, is that, often, as I mentioned, our clients are living in some of the worst housing conditions, and come to us after they've reached crisis point. They come to us because they've had an interaction with the health service, for example—they've had a fall in their home, because their home's unsuitable for them; it's got hazards and they've fallen over. Because this is tenure neutral, it will provide more impetus to help vulnerable people, rather than looking at it from a tenure perspective. As I mentioned, older people are much more likely to own their own homes, but it would mean that for those people who are unseen, who we only see once they have reached crisis point, it will give that impetus to be able to start designing policy in way that would help them. These are the people who are too proud to admit that there's a problem in their home, or don't recognise it because they've learned over time to cope with draughty windows, leaky windows—whatever it is. Often, they call us, and they say, 'Oh, my window's leaking', and, actually, you go into the property, and, yes, the window is leaking, but because the window's leaking, there's now water in the electrics, so the electrics aren't working, there's dangerous wiring, there's draught, there's damp, there's mould, there's condensation. People just learn to live with these things. And because this Act is really people focused, it will help us, really, to give people rights when they're struggling in these situations but don't necessarily know that there's anything they can do about it.

Thank you very much. Jayne, are you content?

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Who would like to offer an initial response? Jim.

I'm happy to go first, Chair. It's very difficult to quantify, isn't it? I think that if you look back to where we started around what the conditions that might apply to a definition of 'adequate', then you'd get to see the different ways in which that cost could be calculated and built up. I think there is no doubt that the cost is significant, but I would certainly hesitate to put a figure immediately upon that. I think where you see the kind of approaches where, in policy terms, we've been able to improve housing stock, and I'm probably talking about the social housing stock at this stage through initiatives like the Wales housing quality standard, you can see that over a period of 20 years, we actually are able to make a material difference to the condition of the housing stock, and it's there. What we need to do then is to have the metrics to go on and measure, for that population, what those better outcomes have actually started to accrue like over that period, rather than just be measuring energy performance certificate levels, or some of the inputs. It's about the impacts on people's lives. So, I'm maybe not answering your question directly there, I'm afraid, but it's a complicated equation that has a positive and/or detrimental effect on many aspect of people's lives.    

I'm just going to agree very much with Jim again. I think, as he has said, in defining where we're looking for where the costs lie, it is useful to use any assessment of what an adequate home is that we have already, as Jim has mentioned, within the Wales housing quality standard, the areas of focus within there. So, it would be useful to consider the impact if they are not present. And, as Jim has said, it's very difficult to assess the scale of the cost in terms of health and social care, inequality, people not being able to maintain financial resilience, not being able to seek work because their home situation is not adequate for them to maintain resilience or have certainty over their lives.

As Jim has also mentioned before, there are huge numbers of people presenting as homeless, there's a lack of affordable homes for them to move into, and there is a cost there as well. There's a huge cost to them as individuals, but a cost to the state. So, I think it would be an area of inquiry in terms of the current cost to the state when we're looking at the introduction of a right to adequate housing, to see where inadequate housing is causing huge pinch points. I think that's what I was talking about right at the beginning. It has to be a cross-Government strategy, and this kind of inquiry in terms of the true cost would help to incentivise all departments to come to the table. I think the research that the Back the Bill campaign has done has set a starting point, if you like, for the kind of savings that could be made if adequate housing was available to all.  

Thank you, Laura. Faye. 

I agree with the points that have been raised. I think the reality is we don't know the cost of inadequate housing, because quite a lot of the repercussions and ramifications of inadequate housing are hidden until someone reaches that crisis point where they interact, for example, with the NHS. And in that context, yes, we can quantify it. I know Public Health Wales have published some research saying that the cost of cold homes is around £95 million per year to the Welsh NHS, but, actually, that stat came out—. I mean, I've been seeing that for a couple of years. That predates the cost-of-living crisis. That predates the fact that we've just had a winter where, in our client group, anyway, from our casework experience, we're seeing people who haven't put their heating on for six months, and then the health ramifications of that—the increasing calls we're getting about damp, mould and condensation. 

The BRE Trust have also done some work around the costs of improving the housing stock in Wales. The upfront would be recouped over six years in savings to the NHS. So, there is research out there, but as Laura and Jim have said, it's really difficult to quantify something when you don't actually know what the need is, basically. I do think, though, the Act does offer the opportunity to move away from crisis management and start looking at preventative approaches to health, and we can quantify those kinds of cost savings in an okay way, from a Care and Repair perspective, anyway. So, we know that, for every £1 spent on housing adaptations, we save the Welsh NHS around £7.50, and we've got a specialist hostel to healthier home service, which is about getting people out of hospital more quickly, and reducing readmissions. So, the readmissions rate for that is around 5.5 per cent, compared to a national average of between 12 per cent and 15 per cent, and we know that, for every £1 we spend on that, we save the Welsh NHS about £8.60. 

Similarly, we've also done some research with Swansea University. So, that's around—. We use the secure anonymised information linkage databank, using information for people aged between 60 to 95, and the difference between their likelihood of hospital admission following a fall between those who have and haven't had a Care and Repair intervention—so, if you haven't had a Care and Repair intervention, you're 17 per cent more likely to be admitted to hospital following a fall. And some other work around delaying access into residential care. So, there is information out there, but I think it goes back to the point of really needing to understand what the housing stock is like and the situations that people are actually living in right now, before you can even really quantify a cost to this.

Okay, thank you, Faye. Mabon.

Okay. Again, who would like to—? Jim.

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier, Chair, I think that the first thing that we collectively have to do is to engage more with stakeholders. I think that the conversations that have been taking place to date have been fairly limited in relation to the right to adequate housing. If I can reflect from a local government perspective, those conversations haven't been widespread and haven't been at great depth. I think there's a lot to be done to develop a consensus, to develop a common understanding, to bust some myths about what the right to adequate housing may or may not be, and to get people onto a level playing field where they can start to work together to develop a plan for how to identify what the right to adequate housing might look like and how best to take that forward. I think until you get stakeholders at that equal starting point, by and large, then that's going to be difficult.

I think it will perhaps be even more challenging to do that in a private sector perspective. If we think about the supply issues and the condition issues in relation to the public sector, social housing sector stock, then I think, as some colleagues have already alluded to, the challenges are more significant, both in terms of quality but also in terms of supply, with the private rented stock, and I think it's more difficult to have those conversations with thousands of individual landlords than it is with some large public sector organisations or quasi-public sector organisations in the form of housing associations. So, it's more of a challenge having that conversation across a more diverse population in terms of the private owner-occupied sector and the private rented sector.

Okay, thank you, Jim. Laura. 

Yes, I think a really long-term look at capacity within the system—. Obviously, we've been raising concerns about housing and homelessness support at the moment with regard to the cost-of-living crisis and inflation, and the settlement that exists, but I think that's within the context of the fact that we need a long-term vision and plan for making sure that all parts of the system that help to deliver this are going to be adequately resourced. The law won't be able to be delivered unless the resources are there to do so, so what's the really long-term vision for that?

In addition, for us, in relation to that knowledge that we need to increase housing supply, and we need to continue to do so over the long term for the needs of Wales, really, trying to see what the role of housing is and, certainly, from a social housing perspective, those that are building and developing homes moving towards a place where we want to be, where we have better alignment between our need to develop and our need to protect the environment and our need to tackle climate change. I'll keep coming back to this. It’s what’s delaying housing development at the moment, but it’s also something where we can have a shift.

If we know we need to invest in the infrastructure and the kind of innovation within housing, and housing working together with other stakeholders to really set that long-term vision for what we want, Wales can lead the way in terms of having responsible development that improves communities and provides affordable homes. So, I think that would be one of our priorities for a kind of long-term vision. There’s an urgent need now, but where do we want to go to over the long term and how can we bring those areas of focus together?

Okay. Thanks, Laura. Faye.

So, in terms of examples of specific actions and policies, I've talked a lot about bringing back the Welsh housing condition survey. I think that that’s really important, because, when you understand the problem more clearly, you can think about how best to target the scare resource that we do have. So, today, I've given the case that there’s a lack of accessible housing. We know that there are cost benefits to—. The cost benefits of adaptations are really strong; we know we've got an ageing population and we're going to see increased demand for that. So, for me, that would be a good use of resource, to drive resource into something that is going to save money as well, and we already know does save money.

There’s another issue that I've touched upon, around housing condition, and Jim and Laura are right, obviously, we have got the Welsh housing quality standard, but that’s only for social homes. Optimised retrofit, at the moment, the sample size for that is only social homes as well. So, there’s a lot of challenge around unmet need for owner-occupiers, and one of the things that Care and Repair has been calling for is around a housing repair grant. So, that's for things that we really struggle to find funding for, and those are things that are really about the fabric and the structure of people’s homes. So, that’s your roof repairs, that’s your draught—you know, the example that I gave before: draughty, leaking windows and so forth.

We can’t fund this work easily, but what it means is that we have massive inefficiencies in our casework, because we have to go out to lots of different pots of benevolent funding to try and find funding for this work. Because those pots are getting smaller and smaller, it means that competition for them is increasing. So, it’s increasingly difficult to fund these repairs anyway, and then, in the context of scarce resource and more competition, that means that we might get a bit of funding, but then the cost has gone up, so we need to go back and find another funding pot. Then, there’s a supply issue, so we need to wait a bit for the material to come back into stock, and it’s gone up in price again.

There’s a huge cycle of challenges that we're having that means that people are living for longer in homes that are unsuitable. And actually, if we just had a pot of money that we could—you know, a safety net for people, where we can’t find any resource. If we had that, it would improve efficiencies because we would be able to save loads of time on our casework and actually help more people more quickly. So, in terms of an action or a policy, that’s something that we're definitely advocating for.  

Okay. Thank you very much, Faye. Laura.

Thank you. Sorry, just to come back in, to pick up on the decarbonisation and net zero, in particular, with regard to retrofitting and the forthcoming Wales housing quality standard, as well as new build, at the moment, we don't have a clear long-term road map to decarbonising the social housing stock. So, we've done some modelling that demonstrates achieving energy performance certificate A by 2023 for housing associations in Wales alone would cost £2.05 billion, and that's likely to be a conservative figure. Obviously, we are working really hard to look at how we can leverage different sources of funding around that, but we need a clear, long-term funding commitment to make sure that decarbonisation is deliverable, to return to the fact that that means that people can live in homes that they're more likely to be able to heat, with potentially lower costs, and also the contribution to tackling net zero and the importance in relation to climate change. We have many barriers, at the moment, to the decarbonisation agenda. So, we do need infrastructure to deliver retrofit ambitions at pace. We need a skilled workforce. We still don't have enough people to deliver this and specialists within trades and services, and, obviously, there's ongoing volatility in terms of the costs involved and the inflationary environment. So, I think it's useful to remind ourselves of the specific policy that we need to make sure that we decarbonise for the climate, but also for people living in the homes.

Okay, Laura. Thank you very much. Okay, Mabon? Yes. Diolch yn fawr. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks ever so much, everyone, for coming in this morning—just, I think. Sorry, it's come over to this afternoon. I've got a couple of questions, but I just want to pick your brains about the generalities, first, of a right to adequate housing Act. In the last evidence session, we spoke with a number of organisations, like Alma Economics and the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru. One of the things that come up in the report that they said there was, and I'll quote it now,

'if Wales was hypothetically and fully on the path toward universal adequate housing under current policies, introducing the RTAH would not generate any additional costs or benefits'.

I just wanted to get your opinion on that statement, really, because, as I read it, I read it as current legislation already should be there to make sure people have adequate housing. I'm conscious of what Faye was saying about how the Act would drive impetus and focus minds. But is there a danger of creating or duplicating legislation for the sake of it, really? Thank you.

Okay. Who would like to respond?

I don't know if anyone wants to pick that one up. Sorry.

I'm sure somebody will, Joel. Laura.

Absolutely. Yes, I'm fine to come back on that. I think the intention, as I say, is to draw all the existing policy and legislation together. I think that we do need to be cautious in terms of making sure that we don't create any additional burden. That's why, as Jim has said, making sure that this is designed with all relevant stakeholders is critically important. My understanding, as I say—I can't comment on the detail of the Alma Economics evidence, but my understanding is that the intention is to create a broad duty on Welsh Government that creates the kind of strategic environment, as I say, for the policies to be delivered, but then, through progressive realisation, for the detail to be worked out. I think it does need to be baked in from the start to that legislation that that will be done in consultation with stakeholders and with a view to ensuring that the resources are there to deliver it. As I say, I don't think anything currently exists that draws together the strands in the same way, but I think you're right to be cautious in terms of not wanting any unintended consequences and to be quite rigorous at looking at the fact that this doesn't cut across any current policy and legislation in the duty it places on Welsh Government and, in particular, on local authorities and those working within the system, where capacity is already stretched.

Okay, Laura. Jim.

I'd agree that the difference here is about the strategic focus on housing that this brings across a variety of service areas, and also the longevity that you would hope that this would bring, so, over a period of a number of electoral cycles, for example, over a number of budgetary cycles, where the commitment can be both demonstrated and measured and, in order to achieve the outcomes that we set within the right to adequate housing, going back to the conditions, that there is that support for delivery through all those levers that are required to ensure success at a Welsh Government level, local government level and through all the partnerships required to deliver on the ambition.

Okay, Jim. Thank you very much. And Faye?

Yes, I would just reiterate what Jim said. By having a right to adequate housing, you are providing that strategic overarching framework, but also, you can't regress on rights. Once you've got the right, the right is there, which means that it would withstand different parliamentary cycles, budget cycles, and so forth. And also, it gives us an end goal, so it gives us a purpose in terms of what we're actually working towards, which I think is important in developing any sort of strategy or framework in this context.

Okay. Thank you, Faye. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Faye, thanks for that. So, with that in mind, then—especially, Laura, with your comments there—what do you see as the timescales, then, because it sounds like a very long process to get to the end goal? And I was just wondering what sort of factors could influence that timescale, either to make it quicker, or maybe even add more time to it?

Okay, who would like to take us through some of the issues involved in that question? Jim?

Chair, just to go back to my previous answer, it's difficult to put a timescale on it, but I did mention multiple political electoral cycles, so you start having a conversation once that's been demonstrated, I think. So, that takes us to a minimum of 10 years, for example, to look at, during that time, how you would measure that progressive realisation. So, by having the outcomes that were identified, by having the conditions for success, I hope that we would have in place mechanisms that would allow ongoing measuring of progress towards those aims and ambitions so that we wouldn't have to wait until we got to the end of 10 years to know how we were doing; to know what progress was being made and what barriers had had to be overcome in that time, or were proving difficult.

I think in terms of the earlier questions about leadership and finance, those are the big calls that need to be there, and those are very significant. We can see that, even in the current situation when we've talked about the supply of new social homes, the increased budget, for example, around the delivery of those 20,000 homes, isn't necessarily going to guarantee us success, because of some of those other barriers that we've alluded to there.

So, we need to have a live set of measures that will allow us to look at that progress. But leadership at all levels, clarity of purpose, an alignment of ambition, and the resources to deliver and the capacity within partner organisations, not just through Welsh Government budget, but the capacity within local government, within registered social landlords and within all the other stakeholders, to actually deliver on success has to be critical in order to start on that journey together. And people need to be confident that that could be maintained over the period of time required.

Okay, Jim. Laura.

Absolutely. I think in terms of the timescales, obviously, there are some particular steps that we need to go through—a Green Paper, White Paper stage—but as with anything, where you're creating something that will affect multiple stakeholders over complex systems, it will be critical to get people to the table as early as possible, and if you do that work at the beginning, then you're less likely to encounter problems as you go on in terms of timescale. So, I think a really good consultation phase, a really good set of data sets—I think we've talked a bit about the kind of understanding of the current situation that it would be useful to have, so people know where we're starting from and then can take part in the conversation about where we're trying to get to.

And I think in terms of a timescale of an end point of everyone having adequate homes, it's always going to be ongoing, and I think that, as Faye said, once you have the right, it is incumbent on those in Government to seek ways to provide that, and so, there'll be various milestones along the journey, but the journey will be ongoing.

Okay, thank you, Laura. Faye.

Yes. This might be really annoying, but I don't think we ever actually necessarily do get to that point because, actually, to me, a right to adequate housing is about meeting people's needs and people's needs change over time. So, actually, regardless of that timescale, it's something that you're constantly working towards—constantly working towards that minimum standard, constantly working towards the use of resource to get there. But it's not a stagnant thing; we don't suddenly just have all homes being an adequate standard, because what that means changes over time for different people. I just wanted to throw that in.

Yes, okay, Faye. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Joel.

Thanks, Chair. If it's okay, I've only got two more questions, really. Obviously, with what's been said, then, about the right to adequate housing Act, it'll probably take some considerable time before it's implemented, and I just wanted to get your ideas on existing legislation. For example, the two that come to mind are the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 and the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. I was just wondering what could be done to make those more effective in the time being, then, because from what I gather, on the legislation that's in place, this right to adequate housing Act is needed almost to supercharge what's in place to get that actively working. I just wanted to know your opinions on the current legislation.

Okay. Laura.

I think, in a nutshell, certainly from a social housing point of view, it's more about the investment and policy and making sure that there's alignment between various strands of policy within housing and without, rather than the current legislation itself not working effectively. I hope that makes sense. So, it's more a policy and investment issue than a legislative one, certainly from the perspective of social housing. 

Okay. Thanks, Laura. Okay, Joel?

Yes, thank you, Chair. And a final question, I promise: Laura, you mentioned earlier about data sets, and I just wanted to get your idea on what sort of further research and data might be needed to get the right to adequate housing Act fully implemented, or to take the policy forwards, and if there are any obvious gaps in data that spring to mind, sort of thing.

Absolutely. I'm sure they would be numerous. Some of them—the one that I think would be particularly useful to look at is work that I think Welsh Government already has under way in terms of increasing the data and understanding with regard to barriers to increasing housing supply, and capacity issues across the system in terms of where the pinch-points are and mapping that across Wales, and having a look at things like land availability—all the building blocks that go into being able to build affordable homes. And also, as I said earlier with regard to the way in which the local assessment of housing needs is adding up to a picture across Wales where we're building an increased supply in the right way for communities. And in addition to data on that and looking across the piece on that, that bird's eye view around that, I think bringing in a community voice upfront in terms of getting some understanding of the way in which people in Wales perceive their ability to access adequate homes.

Okay, thank you very much, Laura. If all the witnesses are content then and there's nothing to be added—. Joel, are you happy? Okay. Well, thank you all very much—. Oh, Jim?

I was only going to mention the private sector again, Chair, in terms of the starting point, I think we are much better served by the information that we've got in terms of social housing stock in Wales, because of the obvious involvement of bodies like local authorities, housing associations and Welsh Government in terms of the public investment in there. But the private stock—private rented stock—I think is much more disparate and it's much more difficult to gather information on that starting point. 

I think that we can continue to have research that draws on the success of others. We're not the first country to set a foot on this path, and I think we need to continue to learn from the experience of others. And also, to look again at the wider role and the contribution that wider public services can make—we've talked about health and education and others. I think it's important to see the role that they can play in terms of taking this policy forward and some of the impacts that we've got and we need to understand that even better than we do now.

Okay, Jim. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for your evidence this morning, and thank you to Laura and Faye as well. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr. Okay, committee will break for lunch, then, until 1 o'clock.

Okay, welcome back, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. We've reached item 8 on our agenda today, the right to adequate housing, and our fourth evidence session. Unfortunately, one of our witnesses, Dr Beth Watts-Cobbe of Heriot-Watt University, is unable to join us as expected, but I am very pleased to say that we're joined all the way from the University of Technology Sydney by Dr Jessie Hohmann, and thank you very much, Jessie, for joining the committee this afternoon. If it's okay, I'll move straight into a couple of initial questions and then other committee members will have questions as well. Firstly, we know that the right to adequate housing is in place in quite a number of countries and it's quite well established as a concept, but I wonder if you could give us your view as to how clear it is, or isn't, in terms of what the right to adequate housing actually means.

Sure. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, that's fine. Thank you.

Fantastic. Well, first of all, thank you so much for having me. So, I spent a lot of my career, I suppose, arguing that the right to housing is sufficiently clear to do meaningful things with. So, I do think it's quite clear. I think if you look—. I suppose there are a few examples to choose from. So, you've said that there are a few places, or a number of places in the world that have incorporated or are bound by a right to housing, but I think we might want to start with the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. There's a really logical reason to start with that, partly because this is what's been suggested to you, as I see on the papers in the draft Bill and by the Back the Bill campaign. So, I can see that this is a model that would be in the forefront of your minds. It's also a logical place to start because, although local government or devolved jurisdictions aren't usually at the forefront of international obligations, those obligations in law actually remain binding on the local levels of government anyway. So, in some sense, whatever the right to housing is in international law, it is actually already an obligation on the Welsh Government, although it will be through the UK Government that you would be held to account for it. So, in international law, it's already binding on you; the question is just how can it be claimed on the ground in Wales, I guess, or how could Wales be held to account to fulfil it. So, the right for me is contained, really, in a really simple phrase, which is the right to a place to live in peace, dignity and security, and that's right at the outset of the interpretation of the right by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. So, in the covenant, it's the right to adequate housing as an element of the right to an adequate standard of living, but the content of that is the right to a place to live in peace, dignity and security, and I really think that's the heart of the right. I think that's the most important aspect of the right to capture if you're seeking to bring home a right to housing, because I think that's what, really, people think of when they think of the right to housing.

Where I think it gets complicated is because then the committee on economic, social and cultural rights has said, 'How can we possibly capture what adequate housing means around the whole world? We can capture that by spelling out these seven elements: if we can say that housing is that we have security of tenure, habitability, accessibility, location, affordability, cultural adequacy, if you put all these things together, no matter where you are and no matter what housing system you have, no matter what the form of housing in your culture is, you will get adequate housing, and adequate housing as the standard.' But I think sometimes those seven elements can feel a little bit distracting from the heart of the right to housing as somewhere to live in peace, dignity and security. And I think that, at the heart of it—somewhere to live in peace, dignity and security—is pretty clear. It's really up to a national jurisdiction or a devolved jurisdiction, in this case to Wales, to decide how to give that teeth or purchase in your state. So, I think that that core content is really, really helpful.

I could keep talking, because there's another model from the European social charter that I love to talk about, but do you want to ask me any questions specifically on what I've said, because I could talk for a long time?

[Inaudible.]—what you were saying in terms of its practical application, really, because obviously it's—. I think a lot of people would understand the concept of having a right to adequate housing, without going into detail of what it might mean, but the idea that people should have the right to a certain standard of housing, but it's what sits underneath that in terms of making it count for something on the ground, as it were, that's very significant, isn't it? I just wonder what you would say to the committee about what practical difference it would make if we did incorporate a right to adequate housing into law in Wales. What practical impact would it have?

Yes. Before I get to that, can I tell you about the European social charter?

Yes, absolutely.

I think that it's another potential way to frame what the right to housing is, and it gets almost no attention outside of continental Europe, I guess. I don't believe that the right under the European social charter is something—. It's in article 31, and I think it's not one that the UK has signed up to, but I believe Ireland has. In article 31, the state is required to promote access to housing that's of an acceptable standard, prevent homelessness through a reduction over time, with the ultimate aim being its elimination, and then the third part of article 31 is concerned with affordability for those without adequate resources. So, instead of breaking the right to housing down into seven elements, it goes straight to promoting access to housing that's of an acceptable standard, prevention of homelessness, reduction towards elimination, and then affordability for those without adequate resources. And I actually think that gets very little attention, but is, really, a framing of the right that's really useful if you're thinking about how would we translate this obligation into our national law. So, I think that is worth the committee thinking about as well.

As far as practical difference, I think that, having a right to housing in Welsh law, where that can make a practical difference is in the ability to claim it. So, at the moment, technically, everyone in Wales has a right to housing in international law, but, really, no way to claim that from the Government. So, I also think what's important about it is—. You're probably already saying in your mind, 'Yes, but we have all these sorts of housing rights. We have good protections, perhaps, in our housing Act', or 'We have protections in different elements of social policy that do protect housing.' They are discretionary, by and large—different Governments can come and go, and they can change their mind, they can enact different laws, strip away different protections. What you do when you say something is a human right and you put that in your law as a human right, I think is that you recognise that it's something that's enduring, that's fundamental, and, by giving it that status, you give it a quality that says it's more fundamental and above politics. There's no doubt that human rights are, in their own way, political, but it's a statement that raises it above the sort of whim of the cycles of politics.

So, I think that there's that. Making that commitment, it does add on a macro level. So, it makes that commitment that we will commit to this, that we're committed to it on a higher level than everyday politics. But, of course, depending on what method of incorporation you go for, it also does make it claimable by a person whose rights are violated. So, if you do go for some method of judicial enforcement, then someone who is denied the right to adequate housing, depending on what content you've given it, can then come before the courts and can actually say, 'This is an individual violation', and that's usually thought of, or by many people that's thought of, as a really important aspect of rights, that you can claim them as an individual.

Okay, Jessie. Thank you very much. We'll move on to other committee members, then, and, first of all, Carolyn Thomas. 

Thank you. So, my question is: are there any international examples that could provide models for Wales to follow to incorporate the adequate housing into law?

So, your question is specifically about incorporation—so, the model. Yes, so how you actually make it claimable in a state. So, there are a number of models, and I see that a number of models have been discussed in the papers that you've been given, so the submissions before you, for example. And some of them are definitely stronger than others, and some of them, to be honest, I was a little surprised to see that they were referred to as a right to housing. For example, New Zealand is going through a process now where there's been a long campaign around whether there should be some kind of right to housing. They've got a consultation now on the right to a decent home, but it's been very hard to translate that into human rights language; there's been real resistance to that in New Zealand. So, in some ways, you might have good protection in law, but people would not recognise that as a right to housing. 

The most famous example in national constitutional law is probably the South African example. The South African example is very interesting, because, obviously, it was incorporated, or it was put into the constitution, as part of a really transformative aim to move beyond a radically unequal society. And the constitutional provision itself is quite strong, but it's a really interesting lesson, I think, in embedding the right into the legal culture, because the way the right has been protected is actually pretty weak. So, the constitutional court hasn't really given any content whatsoever to the right. So, it's a right to have access to adequate housing, but all of the court discussion there has moved immediately to the idea of reasonable state action.

And I have to admit, I used to be really critical of the South African court, but, the more I've read in recent years, I've actually realised that the court has ended up protecting people's housing interests in a way that is incredibly detailed. It requires detailed, in-depth court action. So, it has actually turned the South African constitutional court into quite an activist court, although not by giving content to the right, and it would have actually maybe been easier to give some hard, enforceable content to the right, because what's happened now is the court has said the state must act reasonably, and acting reasonably means that you will consult and engage with people who are going to be affected by decisions that will impact negatively on their housing, and this will be a process of consultation. And what that has actually ended up meaning is that the court is often making orders that the parties will come back to them with the settlement from the consultation, and then the court is ending up really overseeing this in-depth process of consultation that could actually better take place somewhere else, and which would actually, I think, for many people in, I guess—. Certainly, from my experience of the UK, that would be something that we would not expect to see judges doing. Not that they can't do it or that it's necessarily inappropriate, but judges might be resistant to it.

So, I think having that real debate actually is really important so that you have broad agreement with what you actually want from your right to housing, because I think otherwise what you do get is these very narrow interpretations of the right, which can have really interesting consequences over time and then lead to very complicated ways of trying to actually protect people's adequate standard of living.    

What about—? Sorry, Sam, did you want to come in on that?

Yes, Sam.

Yes, thanks. It was actually just on the point previous, if you don't mind, Jessie, where the chairman asked about some of the practical differences of the right to adequate housing being incorporated, and you referenced I think it was article 31, and then that being adopted by continental Europe generally. Am I right so far in what I've replayed back to you?

Yes. So, the European social charter is the companion to the European convention on human rights. So, because of the general, I guess, reluctance to treat economic, social and cultural rights the same way as civil and political rights, there’s no enforcement mechanism for the European social charter that is like the European convention on human rights. So, we all know that the European convention on human rights has the strongest model of enforcement of any regional or international human rights convention. You actually can claim those rights and there will be consequences for the state for not complying. But Council of Europe states were reluctant to do that for economic, social and cultural rights. They have a European social committee, and you can take a collective complaint to the social committee, and the social committee examines social policy, but it can't enforce a judgment. So, it can find that a state's housing policy is terrible, doesn't comply with the right to housing under article 31, but it can't enforce that in the same way that the European Court of Human Rights can.

And just to perhaps expand on that then, would that be the reason perhaps places like France still have over 300,000 people as being homeless? So, whilst they might be signed up to the charter, with that not being enforceable, it's not perhaps making the difference on the ground that you'd want or expect to see. Is that a reasonable, logical step there?

Yes. I mean, I think—. Yes, although I would also say that—. You need the political will. If you haven't got the enforcement mechanism, then you have to have the political will. If you don't have the political will to do so, then you would have to have the enforcement mechanism. I guess the difficulty for you in your situation is you have to have the political will to get the enforcement mechanism, and that's what you're talking about.

On the European social charter, what's interesting about it is that the content is good. I think the normative content of the right itself in article 31 is actually a really useful, succinct way to express what you might be looking for, so those three aspects: promoting access to housing that's of an acceptable standard, moving towards the elimination of homelessness, and affordability for those without adequate means. That, I think, is really good, and that's open for states to pick up on as a standard and make enforceable if they choose. It's just another option.

People go to the international level, and I think the international right is also strong, but there are other options out there that aren't just the obvious ones. Actually, the right to housing is in 80 national constitutions. A lot of South American constitutions have a right to housing. We don't know about them very much, because we have to read Spanish and Portuguese, and I only speak English, so I'm also not familiar with a lot of the scholarship there. But it's very interesting, and some of those constitutions have struck a really interesting balance between the right to housing and the right to property. They have what's called a social function doctrine of property, where property is not a right, but a social function, and because it's a social function, it can be balanced against other social functions, one of which would be the right to adequate housing. So, some of those examples, if you've got researchers who can read in other European languages, would be probably useful to look at as well.

I'm really sorry, Chair, and Carolyn—I'm sorry to jump in here. I appreciate what you shared there. I think, if I'm being upfront, at the moment what I'm really struggling with is there's great examples of things being placed in law, pieces of paper being written, but in reality we know that areas of Brazil have some of the largest slums in the world. So, I'm struggling to understand the leap from the theory, which is wonderful, to the reality, and why the reality doesn't seem to be as affected by the theory as it, perhaps, should be.

I would say it's because in the vast majority of countries the right to adequate housing is not actually complied with. I would just say that, actually, in many countries, the right is weak or unenforced, or is captured by powerful interests. Actually, it's very rare, I would say, that the right to housing is captured by powerful interests; it's not so much that the right to housing is captured by powerful interests, but that other rights with which the right to housing has to be balanced are taken a lot more seriously, particularly, I would say, by the judiciary. For example, the right to property probably remains in some political systems the sticking point for the actual realisation of the right to adequate housing. 

I think the second thing that I would say is that there's also a misunderstanding of what progressive realisation requires, or what progressive realisation means when it comes to the right under the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. There are immediate obligations and progressive obligations in the right in international law. Progressive realisation only kicks in when you don't have adequate resources. Everything that you do have adequate resources for, you should do now. What's really interesting in the Welsh case is that I've seen your feasibility report that's been created, which actually shows where all those resources are going otherwise. So, those resources are there; they're going into other places, and if you put them into housing, then you will actually—. The thing is, the state may have the resources but it's putting them elsewhere. There have been arguments, at the international level, that those resources are actually available resources.

In Spain, Spain has accepted the optional protocol to the international covenant, which means that people can bring individual complaints under it, which not so many countries have yet done. But people in Spain began to bring individual complaints. In one case, there was very, very little social housing, and a family had been evicted after attempting to secure social housing for 10 years. They were finally evicted for rent arrears from their apartment. I think they'd applied for social housing the whole time. There were only something like 280 social housing units available and a waiting list of over 2,000. In the case, it emerged that the city of Madrid had sold off most of its social housing units in an attempt to balance the budget. What the committee said was, 'Actually, you have not justified the need to sell off your social housing units as necessary use of your resources. Those resources should've been treated as available resources, and therefore as part of the immediate obligation to comply with the right to housing.' So, actually, I think one of the weaknesses is the misunderstanding that the right to housing is merely a progressive standard and that progressive realisation is the main thing, when, actually, progressive realisation only kicks in when resources for the right to housing run out, or resources for housing run out.

Okay, Sam? Carolyn.

I was interested when you said we have got resources here in Wales, the Welsh Government, and if we just focus them into housing—. Can you just elaborate a bit more on that?

I was just thinking of your feasibility report. I'm sorry, it's not your feasibility report, but the feasibility—. Sorry, what's it called? It was the feasibility report that was put to you that looked at the costs and savings that would be made if everyone had adequate housing. It suggested that putting £5 billion into housing would save you £11 billion, because those resources are going to social welfare, the NHS, street homelessness services, et cetera. So, those resources are being spent, they're being spent elsewhere, but to put them into housing may—. They're there, they're just being spent on something else. In Australia right now, we seem to be spending our $285 billion on nuclear submarines, and the Government has suggested that maybe they should cut the disability insurance benefit to pay for them. That would be an example where those resources are available for a social right but are being spent elsewhere. So, it can be about political choices.

Yes, that was a report that had been done by an outside body to put forward the proposal to us, which was really useful.

Also, I wouldn't say that realising the right to housing is cost free. That's just not the case. Of course, for everyone to have adequate housing does cost money; it's not a cost-free situation. There's no way that that can be argued. But I also think that it's important for governments to look at the way they're subsidising existing housing. I can't speak to the Welsh situation, and some of these powers are not devolved, I believe, as well. But, for example, in Australia, the Government subsidises housing all the time. It subsidises housing through tax policy, through pension policy, through welfare policy, but it actually only subsidises the housing of home owners. So, it subsidises housing, it puts money into housing, but it does not put money into housing for the most vulnerable. It puts money into the housing of those who already have the best assets. And it's incredibly clear here that all of that money is Government intervention in housing, but it's not for the most vulnerable. I think that's also something to think about. 

I think that point you mentioned was about taking the long-term view as well, rather than short term of what you can be doing in the four or five years of that Government, really. You've covered quite a bit already about how the right to adequate housing interacts with other human rights. Is there anything that you might have missed or anything more you'd like to say on that point? 

I think the right to housing actually helps fulfil a number of other important rights, not only economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to education, the right to decent work, because you need that safe place to go out from to do those things, but also what we think of as the more traditional civil and political rights. The right to vote often is only effective if you have a fixed address; the right to privacy, the right to family life—all sorts of rights. I think in a culture, as yours is as much as mine, based around the family home, the lack of an adequate home is really, really detrimental for people. 

It's really interesting—and this is not from a human rights frame—that in a disaster relief situation, the first thing that disaster agencies provide is housing, because once you have housing, you can fend for yourself. It's empowering to have housing. I mean, they provide shelter, actually. Even shelter is empowering in a disaster situation. For food, you remain dependent on others, but if you have housing then you're empowered to go out from that space and come back to that space. You've got that security and that independence, and I think that that says a lot, really. 

Carolyn, we'd better move on, because time is moving on rapidly. Jayne Bryant. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you very much for your answers so far; they're really very helpful. I just wonder if you could touch on whether the due regard model of indirect incorporation is effective, or whether direct incorporation, or a mix of both options, is preferable. 

I was thinking a lot about this before I spoke to you this evening, actually; I was trying to think this through. Because I do think, actually, my own view is that any right is best protected before the violation occurs—at the root of all policy, think through how is this going to impact people's housing, is this going to enhance people's ability to have a safe, dignified and secure place to live, or is this actually going to do the opposite. That's the best place to protect people's rights, because after the violation—. Some of these rights have already been violated, and they have to come from a place of vulnerability and then fight to get something back, or to have redress for that. That's obviously work for everyone involved and usually it's quite costly for the person, and you can't always repair the harm.  

I think it's really important to have something like a due regard duty. I think the only problem is, again, if there's not adequate political will to realise or protect a right to housing, then a due regard duty really becomes, 'Well, we looked at it and then we decided to do it anyway', and that can be worse than nothing, really, because then you've got this protection and you've ended up with no protection at all. Of course, I think there will be times when any policy maker or law maker has to look and say, 'We did give due regard to this, but then another pressing social interest had to take priority in this case, and that was this, and so we had to this instead'. You always have to balance rights. They don't always go together seamlessly. It's not always that the right to privacy will enhance the right to housing or enhance the right to education. It doesn't always work like that. 

If there isn't a political will to move towards a better housing situation, the due regard duty will be weak. This goes to the question that the Chair asked me at the beginning: what difference does it make? Is it important to have an enforceable right? I think some people would argue that if you can't enforce your right and have a remedy in the case of a violation, it's not actually a human right; it's discretionary from the Government—a discretionary social policy, for example. So, I think it's very difficult to decide what to do and you really do need to think about what the political and legal culture is and really take that into account.

Thank you. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Diolch, Jayne. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

There are two aspects to that question. What can you do without the law? I think you can do a lot without the law. I think historically a strong commitment to social housing has actually protected people's housing rights really, really well, and that has not generally been something that's been thought of in human rights terms. Historically, the UK has had this strong provision of social housing, and there have been high watermarks and low watermarks of that. So, the provision of housing outside the market, outside competitive market rates, can be really, really important and can be done completely outside the human rights framework, although I would note that there is some criticism that, sometimes, housing in that sort of situation can be seen to be something that is done to people—so, you have to be housed here and be grateful for it; it's a good house. I guess what human rights do is they empower the person as a rights holder, as a person who can participate, has that inherent human dignity and should be taken into account with opinions and needs as important as anyone else.

What are the downsides of human rights? I think they can be prone to capture by corporate or powerful interests, so that a right to housing can quickly, if it hasn't got a strong normative core and strong political support behind it, become something that is captured by the property industry, the construction industry, just as various rights can be narrowly interpreted in favour of powerful groups. I think it's important with social rights in particular to frame them around the least advantaged or those who are marginalised or vulnerable. There are arguments that human rights tend to depoliticise some claims, or that they tend to politicise the courts. Those are not arguments that I agree with; I think that human rights are inherently political claims and that the law is one way we work out our political claims in all circumstances, not only in human rights. So, I think those would be the disadvantages. I do think you can go a long way without a human right, but a human right signals a commitment that I think can be really, really important for a society to coalesce around.

Again, in human rights, there are vigorous debates about how far they contribute to equality or not. But I think, actually, that if you frame a right to housing or define a right to housing as a place for each person to live somewhere in peace, dignity and security, then, to realise that is going to increase equality. It will probably mean changes in law around second or third home ownership, around the tax breaks, perhaps, or the kinds of subsidies that people who already have plenty will enjoy in order that other people can have an adequate standard of living. There are probably human rights that don't necessarily lead to equality when they're realised, but I think the right to adequate housing by its nature necessarily does, so long as it is framed to protect those who are more marginal or not already economically empowered.

I think it also has the potential to protect cultural minorities. One of the elements of the right to housing from the international level—so, that's where we have the seven elements spelled out—is the right to cultural adequacy. This is really, really important, I think, for indigenous peoples, for minorities such as Travellers or Gypsies, and to not compress everyone into the mould that everyone is the same, needs the same housing. I think you get a richer, more diverse society in that way, anyway, but that helps to protect those whose housing needs are not the same as the dominant social norm.

I'm not an economist, and I'm not even a housing policy person—I'm a lawyer. So, I'm probably not best placed to answer this question, but I was impressed by the feasibility report that had been prepared. It reinforced some of my, I guess, more piecemeal pieces of knowledge around how much money tends to go into front-line services as opposed to durable housing solutions. But I think that because a stable, adequate house where you can live in peace, dignity and security does actually give you so many other opportunities and skills and so much security, in many ways it's just inevitably going to be a good economic decision. But this is said not as an economist.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr. Finally, then, Joel James. 

Thanks, Chair. Thanks ever so much for this afternoon, or this evening, maybe, where you are—I don't know, sorry. I've only got two final questions, really. You mentioned progressive realisation earlier, and I just wanted to pick your brains a bit more on that, if you had any specific examples of what could be done in Wales to cover that. I'm conscious of you mentioning it only really comes into place where there isn't the resources there, and you mentioned that Wales has them, but I was just wondering if you had any specific examples there.

First of all, I wouldn't deny that it could be quite difficult to get your hands on that money to start with. You theoretically have money that's going into front-line services or the NHS or the criminal justice system or interventions like school meals; who knows what other things it's going into. So, it's not going to be easy to get your hands on that at the beginning, anyway. It might theoretically be available, but I think you would be able to make an argument that you would need some time to readjust where money is spent. I think that would be a legitimate way of approaching that.

What I can say is that there are a number of things that really are immediate obligations, and that is to fulfil the minimum core of each of the seven elements of the right to housing. That means no-one should be homeless; that's an immediate obligation. It means there should be no discriminatory housing policy; that's an immediate obligation. It means that there shouldn't be subsidies, for example, for anything that can be done without cost. For example, if there are laws that impose barriers to people accessing housing that are enabling letting agents or landlords to impose barriers on people accessing housing, the legislative change doesn't cost the state anything. Those are all immediate obligations. Beyond that, the standard of progressive realisation means to move towards full realisation as rapidly and efficiently as possible. And what you would do to do that, I think, would be fully within the discretion of the Government. That's not for the human right to tell you what to do, but for you to sit down and say, 'How can we achieve adequate housing for all over the next 20 years? These are the steps that we need to take.'

I've read the submissions that have been sent into you, and there are some really, really creative and really interesting proposals. I think it's not for the human rights experts to tell you what to do; it's for you to say, 'Look, the right tells you what the end goal is, and it tells you a scheme of legal obligations to reach that goal, but how you reach those is within your discretion.' There are some really interesting resources out there; the UN special rapporteur on housing in 2019 put out a report on the implementation of the right to adequate housing, and I'm very happy, if you'd like me, to send any of the specific references to the committee. I can send those through via Catherine and Chloe. So, there are plenty of resources out there with ideas on how to achieve this, but it's not for the right to tell you how to do it; it's what you seek to achieve, I think.

Please do send those references. We'd be very grateful. Joel. 

I thought I was being cut off then. 

Not at all. 

I suppose there's a lot more I could ask, but I'm conscious of the time. The last thing, really, is about—. We've heard in previous evidence sessions about a lack of research, or gaps in the data and everything, and I was just wondering if this is something that you see, and if there are any obvious places where that is, if that makes sense.

So, gaps in the data around the right to housing, or around—? Can you just specify a little more?

You mentioned that report that you cited earlier, the Alma Economics report; that highlighted there as well that not all the data's there for them to come to that recommendation in terms of cost-benefit analysis and everything. It's just along those lines, I think: where could we be looking more to get a thorough picture of it. 

As a human rights lawyer, I normally work at the individual level of 'this person's right was violated in this circumstance', or 'this is the content of the right, and this is how it should be applied in this situation.' I'm less familiar with the numbers and the economics of it. I think that the feasibility report you've been given is extremely interesting. I'm not aware of a lot of other similar reports that go to that breadth. Again, there are language barriers for me, but I would be interested to see what's available in Finland, because I think that is a state where the use of housing first policy has reduced homelessness over time. It would be very interesting to see the economic analysis of that. But, yes, I'm probably not so much the person to be able to answer that question.

No worries. I was just curious, as they say. Thank you.

Thank you all very much and thank you, Dr Hohmann. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for having me. I will send through those references. 

Thank you.

Goodnight.

Goodnight. We will break very briefly and resume at 2 o'clock.

We have reached item 9 on our agenda today, which is our fourth evidence session on the right to adequate housing. I’m very pleased to welcome our two witnesses joining us virtually: Professor Simon Hoffman from Swansea University; and Dr Koldo Casla of the University of Essex. Welcome to you both. I’ll begin with a couple of initial questions before other committee members ask questions. The first one is whether you think it’s clear as to what the right to adequate housing means. Who would like to begin?

Shall I begin?

Yes, okay, Simon. Thank you.

I think we need to recognise that, for good reason, it’s an inherently flexible concept so as to make it adaptable to different contexts and different jurisdictions. I think it does, however, highlight that numerous factors contribute to an assessment of what constitutes adequacy in the context of housing, which will be determined in part by social, economic, cultural and environmental factors. Of course, those will be unique to Wales. And in my view, it’s ultimately for Wales, through democratic and governmental participatory processes to determine what constitutes adequacy in relation to housing in Wales. But, that said, the right to adequate housing is obviously based in international law, and for that reason, the determination within Wales of what constitutes adequate housing has to be framed within guidance—in my view, at least—emerging from international human rights mechanisms, including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The committee has advised that the essence of adequate housing is the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. Helpfully, the committee has identified key areas of housing policy that contribute to housing that enables somebody to live, as I say, in security, peace and dignity, and those are listed in a guidance document published by the committee. I won’t go through them all, but they include factors such as legal security of tenure, affordability and accessibility, and there are others. Focusing on those areas helps to give form to the concept of adequacy, in my view. I’ll come back to this, but in closing my point here, it’s ultimately for policy and decision makers in Wales, led by Ministers, to determine and then review and revisit what Wales aspires to as adequate housing to underpin human dignity, and adopt an approach that is participatory and engages with relevant stakeholders.

Finally, I think I need to make the point that, although adequacy is a flexible concept, it comes with an assumption of minimum thresholds, which are non-negotiables, if you like, in order to preserve human dignity. Examples in the context of housing might include that housing should be available on a non-discriminatory basis; that housing policy should prioritise those in greatest housing need; and finally that every effort should be made to end homelessness. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Koldo, did you want to come in on this as well?

Diolch. Prynhawn da. I will speak in English, if I may.

Diolch yn fawr.

I’ve not much to add, other than this is the legislator's decision. A different matter is how much power the legislator wants to give to judges to hold public authorities to account, and maybe we can talk about that in the coming minutes. One question is the substantive recognition of the right, and a different one is how much power judges or the monitoring bodies should have. Yes, there is a reference in general comment No. 4, paragraph 8 to what adequacy means, and the legislator may choose to use it as a reference.

Thank you very much. Another question from me before we move on to other committee members, and that is what you would say about the practical impact of having a right to adequate housing incorporated into law. What would be the practical impact on public policy and communities and individuals?

May I, Simon? Thank you. I think the first one is empowerment to rights holders. The legislator has the opportunity to make a democratic decision, a constitutional decision about what is free and fair in society in Wales, and by doing so to set an example, really, to the other jurisdictions, to those of us living in England, and also in Scotland. As you know, Scotland is also considering recognising housing and other social rights in line with international human rights law. They have been rather slow, we have to say, in the last four years, so Wales can set an example to the other jurisdictions. It's a democratic exercise of what is a free and fair society, and how Welsh rights holders are going to be empowered.

Secondly, it's about providing the tools of monitoring public authorities, either by giving judges power or by creating other accountability mechanisms to hold public authorities to standards of adequacy in the provision of housing.

Thirdly, it's about transparency. One of the elements of housing and other social rights is that public authorities are meant to implement the right policies, making use of the maximum available resources, using all the appropriate policies that they have. That means that public authorities are going to be required to implement policies transparently, to show, because they will hold the burden of proof, that these policies are the best and the most indicative ones to fulfil the goal of satisfying housing. So, it's about transparency and evidence-based policy making.

Finally, it's about impact assessment. It's about not the authorities saying what we deem to be appropriate, but also about looking back and examining what has happened in the last two, three or four years, and assessing whether those policies actually bore fruit or not, and whether action should be changed and different options should be explored.

Thank you very much, Koldo. That's very useful. Simon.

I'd agree with everything that Koldo said there. I think I'd just add, in terms of the impact on individuals, that Just Fair and the Back the Bill partners have submitted evidence that focuses on the potential for the right to adequate housing to underpin investment in social housing to provide for better recognition of tenants' rights to a secure home, that it might lead to closer attention to the housing needs of minority and disadvantaged groups, and ensure that proper priority is given to the supply of affordable, appropriate, accessible and sustainable homes in Wales. I would respectfully agree with and adopt those submissions in their entirety.

I think, for me, there is a challenge here. If the question were framed as 'What's going to be the outcome for individuals?' my own research on incorporation and the research generally I've read on incorporation suggests that making direct causative links between incorporation and outcomes for individuals is extremely challenging, given the range of factors that come into play when public policy is implemented. But the evidence does suggest that where there is incorporation, whether it be incorporation of children's rights or incorporation of the right to adequate housing, policy output certainly seems to be more consistent with human rights and human rights outcomes are prioritised.

As for the impact on public policy, I think this really depends on the form of incorporation. Again, evidence from research suggests, and certainly, my evidence, or my work on incorporation in Wales around, in particular, children's rights suggests that incorporation can have a positive impact on policy development processes. Koldo's already mentioned impact assessment; that's a process that can be introduced into policy development as a result of incorporation, which focuses attention on how rights are given effect and how budgets are allocated to support rights in public policy. Incorporation can also lead to standard setting, because the standards are there when it comes to adequacy for policy decision makers to draw on. It can certainly—again, this is the experience of the child rights measure—enhance accountability, if the form of incorporation is due regard, which, of course, is the mechanism we currently operate for incorporation of children's rights in Wales. That has definitely enhanced, according to my own research, political and administrative accountability for children's rights. If the form of incorporation was direct incorporation, then, there is every likelihood that, in relation to the right to adequate housing, there would be a stronger focus on judicial accountability as well.395

So, there are quite significant impacts that might be anticipated, both for individuals, and for policy process, if Wales wants to incorporate the right to adequate housing. 

Okay, thank you very much. And we'll move on to Carolyn Thomas. 

Thank you. Do you think that there are good international examples, where they've looked at doing this already, which would provide a good model for Wales to follow, so they could incorporate what's happening elsewhere as a right to adequate housing into law? 

I think there are numerous examples given in the Just Fair and the Back the Bill partners, and I also gave some examples in my feasibility report in 2019. Finland is often cited, South Africa is often cited, and I think they're good examples, but forgive me if I'm a little bit cautious in looking at international examples, because the tendency might be to try and adopt, if you like, an off-the-shelf model for Wales, and I think, Just Fair, in their submission are saying that there's not a one-size-fits-all model, and I entirely agree with that.

I think, where international examples perhaps help us in Wales is by providing us with some idea of what the different typologies or overall approaches to incorporation might be. So, you could have a typology of direct incorporation, where rights are made part of domestic law, in a way that makes them enforceable by a court or tribunal. Then you have indirect incorporation, which is the model we have, to date, adopted in Wales, through the due regard approach, which gives rights some legal effect, and, as I said earlier, it can lead to increased political and administrative accountability, but it is a weak form of judicial accountability. And, then, sectoral or piecemeal incorporation, which, again, we see in Wales, which is where there's some reference to rights in legislation that relates to particular areas of public policy. So, we see that in relation to, for example, the social services and well-being legislation, and the additional learning needs and education tribunal legislation in Wales. 

Based on my most recent research for the Welsh Government on strengthening equality and human rights in Wales, it's clear that there is a preference in Wales amongst relevant stakeholders to move from the due regard model to the direct incorporation model. I don't know if that's helpful. 

In relation to the substance of recognition, obviously, the Welsh legislator is best placed to come up with the right wording, but you may choose to be inspired by expressions in other jurisdictions, such as the droit au logement opposable law in France from 2007, or even in Spain, laws at the regional level between 2013 and 2017, not at the Spain federal level, but in the different regions—they also provide some inspiration of how the adequacy can be legislated. 

However, I think the examples from comparative practices are interesting in particular, not in the wording of the substance, but in particular, the wording of the power that monitoring bodies are going to be given. The first question that the legislature, in my view, should address is one of the most important questions—it's whether there should be a Welsh right to housing Act or whether this is an instrument of incorporation of international law. Both have pros and cons. The latter would be a Human Rights Act 1988 sort of approach where you incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights—in this case, perhaps the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, or article 11 specifically, which is the one on housing. Another approach would be the former, which is making this Welsh and making this a Welsh law that, in part, has due regard to international law, but is properly local, and this may be a more attractive solution. Irrespective, one or the other, other questions to be considered are whether monitoring bodies are going to focus on the minimum core obligations, the core content of rights, or also are going to be powered to asses progressive realisation and non-retrogression. So, how fast public authorities are going forward and controlling whether steps backwards are being taken. Again, whether you focus on the core content, or you go beyond is a matter of political calculation, and the legislature will have to decide whether to be narrower or broader.

Another question is: who should be the monitoring body? Should it be judges or should it be a different authority? In the case of Finland, a case that was mentioned, the Finnish constitutional committee is widely respected in the country, and their opinions, while not judicial, are taken very seriously in terms of accountability. So, that's a possibility.

Another question is: what standard of compliance is going to be used—whether reasonableness is the right toolkit or proportionality. If reasonableness, the South African jurisprudence provides indications, such as Grootboom in the year 2000.

Two more points, if I may. One possible form of reparation or remedy could be the principle of meaningful engagement, also coming from South African case law, and whether the legislature wants to include meaningful engagement in the law is another thing to consider. Finally, I think, the social function of property. We are not only talking about the responsibilities of public authorities, but potentially also private actors and landlords, corporate landlords. So, I think, in recognising the right to housing, one also needs to reflect the social function of property.

Okay, thank you very much. Carolyn.

Would you like to expand further on how the right to adequate housing interacts with other human rights?

Quicky, yes, definitely, because housing is not four walls and a ceiling or a roof; housing is a space where we develop our personalities, where we grow as citizens, where we build families, where we invite friends, where we engage with the community. So, it's a space of personal development and, in this regard, housing is associated with all of the rights. With health, because one of the requirements of adequacy is fitness for habitation, and that affects our health. Transportation, where houses are located is also important. Basically, all the social determiners of health, at the end of the day, one way or another, come back to housing. And, as I said earlier, the right to property and how we interpret the right to property, and we make it coexistent with housing.

Thank you.

I tend to agree with Koldo on many, many things. I can't emphasise enough how much I agree with him on the points each of us made about the importance of housing to human rights generally. I think I'd just add that housing, of course, provides a base for employment and a place from which to earn a living, whether that's working from home or travelling to work. It's a base to participate in society, including in cultural life. It's a location for family life, it provides protection from harm, environmental harm and harms from others. And, of course, it's an environment for one's own development, but the development of children as well, and all of those points that I've just made and all that Koldo made relate themselves to human rights. So, it's arguable that housing is amongst—. I don't want to get into the game of rating rights, but it certainly is a fundamental—fundamental—human right, if I could put it that way.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Carolyn. Sam Rowlands.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, gents, for joining committee this afternoon. I'm just interested to understand how a legal right to adequate housing might interact with existing domestic law or domestic rights that are in place in relation to housing and homelessness. Of course, in Wales, we have the future generations Act as well, so I'm interested to understand perhaps how you think a right to adequate housing in law would interact with the future generations Act.

Yes. Shall I go first, Koldo, on this one?

Please.

I think, when it comes to housing, housing policy, housing legislation, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, I think we've already mentioned that the Bill, the right to adequate housing, will focus attention on particular areas of policy choice and housing policy in Wales at different levels. It will also focus attention on how resources are allocated to support those priorities and the delivery of those priorities. 

In other areas, of course, Wales, as we know, has enacted the socioeconomic duty. Socioeconomic inequality often manifests through poor housing and weak security of tenure, and the right to adequate housing will prioritise that housing inequality, contributing, in my view at least, to how authorities go about discharging the need to meet with the socioeconomic duty.

On the well-being of future generations Act, I think that's a really interesting question, and there's strong potential here for the right to adequate housing to contribute to the way in which public bodies establish their well-being plans and they establish their objectives, and partly to give meaning to the well-being goals, which are rather broadly stated in the well-being of future generations legislation. For example, local housing strategies that reflect the objectives of providing affordable housing, sustainable and accessible housing, without adverse discrimination in terms of access, which provides a base for employment, education and family life, are entirely consistent with the well-being goals of a prosperous, resilient, healthier and more equal Wales of thriving communities. So, there is the potential to give form and substance to the well-being goals through pursuing the objectives of a right to adequate housing.

The other benefit, I think, of the right to adequate housing, potentially, and not just the right to adequate housing but other human rights as well—but given that the focus today is on the right to adequate housing—is that, it could provide a framework for coherent public policy on well-being across all public services boards. The well-being goals, as I said already, are fairly widely drafted, and access to rights through the well-being agenda may well be partly a postcode lottery. It seems to me that the right to adequate housing as a focus for well-being and the establishing of well-being objectives and well-being plans could provide a degree of coherence across all public services boards in Wales.

In relation to these points, I would simply say that I would echo what Simon said, and I share the view expressed by Jeff King when he says that social rights are not a replacement for all the other policies that are being implemented on housing, health, education, or the other areas. Social rights, he says, are like capstones, the point at the top that provides an inspiration for many of the other policies, but it doesn't replace—it's not an either/or question; all the policies that are being implemented and all the laws that are currently in place, when they are good, they should remain in place, and a human rights-based approach should provide, first, a constitutional message of what is free and fair in society, and also an additional tool for rights holders to hold public authorities to account.

Okay. Thank you very much. Sam.

Yes, thank you for those responses, and I appreciate the analogy towards the end there as well, Koldo. It helps simple people like me to understand how the frameworks all fit together.

I think, Simon, you mentioned earlier, in the contributions around due regard, how certain Acts or this consideration of due regard has given to certain expectations, I suppose. I'm just wondering how you see that balance with something like this—so, whether a due regard of incorporating this is effective, or whether direct incorporation would be required when it comes to the right to adequate housing.

I think that's a really interesting question, if you don't mind me saying. I think we in Wales have a lot of learning around due regard. It was the form of incorporation that we chose for very particular reasons at a certain point in devolution. We now I think have the opportunity to go beyond due regard to direct incorporation. The risk, I think, is that, if we throw due regard out altogether, we risk losing some of the benefits that we know attach to that form of incorporation. And my own research has revealed that a due regard approach—the research I've conducted, I should say, with others from Bangor University, with Children in Wales, with Young Wales and with Diverse Cymru. The research tends to suggest that the due regard model focuses very much upstream in policy development, at an early stage in policy development, bringing increased attention to human rights at an early stage in policy development, that it tends to lead to increased awareness of the need to focus on human rights in policy development amongst officials and policy makers, that it certainly provides a platform for advocacy, especially for NGOs, and, in the case of children's rights in Wales, the children's commissioner, and it does lead to some increased accountability, particularly administrative—so, process accountability around impact assessment or reporting to the Senedd, for example—and political accountability, because it provides a focal point for scrutiny by the Senedd, from time to time, in relation to children's rights in particular, and I think those are really important benefits to recognise for due regard.

The challenge with due regard, and something that has been identified through research with stakeholders, both in the children's rights field and more generally in relation to human rights, is it's clear that there is an accountability deficit. There is increased accountability, but it's limited, and the accountability deficit is that individuals are not able to bring a claim individually that their rights have been violated or not properly fulfilled. So, accountability is limited to administrative and political, and, by moving from due regard to direct incorporation, we would have the opportunity to strengthen accountability by reference to either a court or a tribunal, or, as I think Koldo already mentioned, some other formal mechanism for assessing compliance with the right to adequate housing in Wales.

But I want to go back to where I started: there were some real benefits that we've experienced in Wales, in children's rights in particular, from adopting the due regard model, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, let's put it that way. And we have an opportunity in Wales to be innovative. We have been in the past—it's been recognised that we are innovative in our law making—and we can be innovative with this by looking at how we can move to direct incorporation while retaining the benefits of indirect incorporation or due regard.

I will echo that. I think, with due regard, Wales set an example of what can be done to hold public authorities accountable, and I think now is an opportunity to go a little bit further. If I may, respectfully, I think an interesting dilemma is not so much between due regard and incorporation but rather recognition and incorporation. Because one option is for the Welsh Parliament to incorporate international standards. Another option is to draft a right to housing Act that is Welsh, that is owned by Parliament, and that uses international law and maybe comparative law in practice as references, but the Parliament is owning it in a democratic exercise. Because housing matters not because it is recognised in article 11 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, but rather, because it matters, it is recognised in international law. So, I would respectfully urge legislators to consider starting it from the recognition of what is free and fair, the role that housing has in a free and fair society, and, once the legislator does that, to use international comparisons and practical examples to strengthen it. And yes, you could include due regard to international law as well. 

Thank you. 

Thank you. Thank you very much. Mabon ap Gwynfor. 

So, starting with the latter part of the question, I think a lot of progress has been achieved so far in relation to homelessness, in relation to security of tenure, in relation to provision of social housing in this country. Advocating for the right to housing doesn't mean that what has been done so far is not good enough, or is not good, rather. Rather, it is about adding another layer, the capstone to the system, the capstone to the pyramid, to give a standard of adequacy to the whole package of housing and to give rights holders a power to hold public authorities to account. 

Arguments against—. Because I don't see the right to housing as an alternative to everything else, I don't think that there is an argument against the recognition of the right to housing. There could be an argument, though, about whether the right idea is to take something that is international and incorporate it directly without translation, because the standards of international law are from 1966, article 11 of the ICESR is from 1966, so someone may say that that's dated, is patriarchal, is not Welsh. These arguments could be presented, and these are political arguments to a large extent. But I think, because I don't see an either/or option here, I wouldn't say there is an argument against it, respecting all the good work that has been done in Wales over the years in this area.