Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Okay. May I welcome everyone to this virtual meeting of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee? In accordance with Standing Order 34.19, I have determined that the public are excluded from the committee's meeting in order to protect public health. In accordance with Standing Order 34.21, notice of this decision was included in the agenda for this meeting, published on Tuesday of this week. This meeting is, however, being broadcast live on Senedd.tv, with all participants joining via video-conference. A Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Aside from the procedural adaptation relating to conducting proceedings remotely, all other Standing Order requirements for committees remain in place. The meeting is bilingual, and simultaneous translation from Welsh to English is available. I would remind all participants that microphones will be controlled centrally, so do not turn them on or off individually. When a participant is called to speak, the microphone will be turned on centrally. Are there any declarations of interest? No.

We will move on, then, to item 2, the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill Stage 2 proceedings. The purpose of this item is to dispose of the amendments tabled to the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill by the Welsh Government and backbench committee Members. I'm very pleased to welcome Julie James, Member of the Senedd, Minister for Housing and Local Government; Emma Williams, director of housing and regeneration for the Welsh Government; Simon White, head of housing strategy and legislation; and Rebecca Raikes, who is a lawyer with the Welsh Government. Welcome to you all. I believe, Minister, that you would like to make some opening remarks.

Thank you, John. That would be really helpful, only to start by thanking members of the committee for their really constructive scrutiny of the Bill during Stage 1. I'm particularly grateful for the committee's views as expressed in its Stage 1 report, which recognises that, ultimately, we are all looking to find a reasonable balance between the interests of landlords and those of contract holders. With this in mind, I want to reassure Members that I have carefully considered all of the amendments tabled for consideration today, and also, whilst we've endeavoured to bring all Government amendments at this stage, Stage 2, I'm afraid that a small number will still be required at Stage 3.

These will include amendments to address the outcome of the case of Jarvis v. Evans & Anor (2020), just going on, which concerns whether a landlord is able to issue notices seeking to end a tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 if that landlord is not registered and, where necessary, licensed by Rent Smart Wales, in accordance with the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Unfortunately, further time is needed to fully bottom out the implications of that case in the context of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, and we also see a need to amend slightly the provisions in the 2016 Act relating to sub-occupation, or 'subletting' in current terminology, as there may be one or two other technical rather than policy-related amendments that are required to enable the 2016 Act to operate smoothly alongside other relevant legislation.

So, diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much, John, for letting me make those remarks. I wanted to draw those matters to the committee's attention at this point.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog.

Okay, so in undertaking these Stage 2 proceedings, then, on the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill, Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of the amendments for debate. The marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments tabled, marshalled into the order agreed by the committee at its meeting on 9 November. So, for this meeting, the order in which we will consider amendments is outlined on the agenda.

You will see from the groupings list that amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate. The order in which amendments are called or moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list. I will advise Members, when I call them, whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way. I will call the Minister to speak on each group.

For the record, in accordance with the convention agreed by the Business Committee, as Chair, I will move amendments in the name of the Minister. For expediency, I will assume that the Minister wishes me to move all her amendments and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list. Minister, if you do not want a particular amendment to be moved, please indicate this at the relevant point in the proceedings.

In line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee and the Minister are not expected to provide advice on the record. If Members wish to seek legal advice during proceedings, please do so by sending a direct message to the legal adviser through Zoom. If necessary, I will call an adjournment, or the legal adviser will reply to you directly.

As this is a virtual meeting, all votes will be undertaken through roll call following the precedent established during our Stage 2 proceedings on the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill. I will call each Member in alphabetical order and invite you to state whether you wish to vote in favour or against the amendment or to abstain. I will state my own vote and declare the result.

Group 1, then, relates to repossession grounds. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 12 in the name of Delyth Jewell. I call on Delyth to move amendment 12 and to speak to this amendment and other amendments in this group. Delyth.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Well, it's not a secret, from earlier discussions about this legislation, that my group believes that we should have a complete ban on no-fault evictions. And the amendments we've tabled today in this group reflect this position. I will place on record that my group will feel very reluctant to support the legislation as it stands, I'm afraid, and we will be wanting to see movement from the Government on this issue.

Our amendments in the group are based on the Scottish model, which bans no-fault evictions. The reason for doing this particularly is to negate any argument that a complete ban on no-fault evictions would be incompatible with human rights laws. I personally think that evicting and making people homeless for no reason is itself incompatible with, or at least a violation of, human rights. But, as has come up many times in this committee in our discussions on many things, there is an imbalance in terms of the lobbying power of tenants in this argument and they do lack the financial resources to establish those groups to challenge this point in court. So, instead of entering into that debate, we've lifted the Scottish model, which, of course, has been in law for a number of years, and it would be reasonable for us to assume, then, that it's compatible with human rights laws. So, it would significantly strengthen the rights of tenants and bring us closer to ending no-fault evictions. So, I very much hope that people will be able to appreciate why we've tabled this and support these amendments. Diolch.

Diolch. I call on Mark Isherwood to speak.

Diolch. The Bill's explanatory memorandum states that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve security of tenure for those who rent their homes in Wales. However, responses to the Welsh Government's consultation were mixed. Although 70 per cent of contract holders in the private rented sector who responded were supportive of the main proposal to extend the notice period of section 173 evictions to six months, and 78 per cent supported the proposal to prevent an eviction notice being served within the first six months of a new occupation contract, 94 per cent of private landlords who responded were against the former and 92 per cent of letting agents against the latter. This is a serious matter with potentially major consequences for both landlords and tenants.

At the close of the Stage 1 debate, the Minister stated,

'you can tell from the various contributions across the floor that we are being criticised by people who feel we are harsh on the landlords and criticised by people who feel we haven't taken tenants' rights into account, and therefore I feel very strongly that we seem to be hitting the balance that we talked about so much as part of this process.'

However, whilst balance is essential, it must not be to the detriment of the supply of quality private rented sector homes in Wales, or create unintended consequences, which would act to the detriment of tenants. As the National Residential Landlords Association stated in written evidence to committee,

'Landlords do not go to court without good reason and prefer to keep good tenants in their homes.'

We know there are some bad landlords out there, but we also know that the overwhelming majority of private landlords are committed to doing the right thing. For example, the overwhelming majority of tenants who approached their landlord or letting agent for support during the coronavirus pandemic, such as for a rent deferral, rent reduction or other assistance, received a positive response.

In light of the increasing dependency of people on the private rented sector for housing, the Welsh Government should help private landlords to maintain a good number of quality rental properties. Many of these landlords have already faced several additional months without rent, because of the restrictions placed upon them during the pandemic, even though the tenancy had failed before the crisis began. There is a fine balance that must be struck to protect both parties in these arrangements. Tenants, of course, need the security of a good home and a responsible landlord, but landlords need responsible tenants who pay their rents when they can. The majority of landlords are individuals who let out one or two properties. Many of these rely on that income for their day-to-day living expenses or to provide pensions. To drive decent landlords out of the sector and reduce the housing stock available for rent would be detrimental to tenants in the long run.

Amendment 29 introduces a number of grounds for repossession into the Bill and responds to the concerns of a number of stakeholders that were raised during Stage 1 proceedings. It introduces repossession grounds if the landlord intends to sell the property, intends to move into the property or intends to move a family member into the property. Such an amendment was suggested by ARLA Propertymark, the professional and regulatory body for letting agents, who state that,

'For the proposed changes to the eviction process to work, additional mandatory grounds for eviction must be included in the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.'

They stated that, once the Bill is implemented, a landlord issuing a fixed-term standard occupation contract would have no means to repossess their property if they needed to move themselves or their family into the property, such as if they were facing homelessness or if they needed to sell the property.

This amendment also enables a mortgage lender to regain possession of a dwelling, responding to the concerns of UK Finance, the collective voice for the banking and finance industry, who state that the Bill may fundamentally increase credit risk for buy-to-let lenders and

'impact their ability to repossess a property, if necessary, in a timely way.'

This could be to the financial detriment of the defaulting borrower, which mortgage conduct regulation requires lenders to minimise as far as possible. Mortgage law, as I know from my previous career, requires mortgage lenders, whether mutual, non-profit or for profit, to safeguard the assets upon which their members or customers' savings are secured, and, as currently drafted, the Bill wold therefore restrict the abilities of lenders to provide the buy-to-let mortgages that underpin the sector's housing provision.

This amendment also introduces mandatory grounds for possession in cases of anti-social behaviour. As the National Residential Landlords Association, formerly known as the RLA, states, 

'if the six-month notice period were to become law, more mandatory grounds for possession must be created, especially one for ASB.'

The explanatory memorandum states that the Bill is seeking to encourage landlords to use the appropriate breach of contract possession ground for issues such as anti-social behaviour, rather than the use of no-fault eviction notices. However, a survey carried out by the NRLA found that landlords were five times more likely to use a no-fault notice, rather than a breach of contract notice, due to a lack of trust in the court system, to remove problematic tenants.

Further, this amendment introduces mandatory grounds for possession in cases of domestic abuse, ensuring that the provisions of the Bill do not impact upon the ability to remove perpetrators of domestic abuse from a property in a swift manner. As I noted in the Stage 1 debate, ARLA Propertymark, the professional and regulatory body for letting agents, states that letting property will become less viable for landlords under the Bill's current proposals, where there is no

'straightforward means to regain the property quickly when things go wrong.'

They note in consequence that there will be fewer privately rented homes, ultimately leaving tenants with less choice of where to live, increasing rents and forcing landlords to become more risk averse and only choose to house the lowest risk tenants. In order to make the legislation workable, they state the Bill must be amended to include these four mandatory grounds for repossession: when the landlord intends to sell the property, intends to move into the property, intends to move a family member into the property, and when a mortgage lender needs to regain the property. To do otherwise will be to the detriment, not only of landlords—most of whom are small businesses that rely on this income for their well-being and livelihood—but to the detriment of tenants across Wales also. Thank you.

Are there other Members who wish to speak? Huw Irranca-Davies.

Very briefly. Thank you, Chair. It's interesting in that Delyth, in moving these amendments, and Mark, in responding, we have two very, very different positions on this. But much of the evidence that the committee has looked at, Chair, and some of the discussions we've had within committee, have striven to try and seek that balance between those two positions.

There is an 'in-principle' position, which Delyth is putting forward, and I know it's a deeply held 'in-principle' position, but my question to the Minister, in responding to the amendments and what she's heard from Mark as well, is where the organisations out there that can actually have an informed opinion on tenants' rights and also tenants' views are on this. They might also hold 'in-principle' positions, but where do they feel we have got to in terms of the balance of what Welsh Government is proposing here? Do they feel that it is a pragmatic solution to balance it between the two positions that we've just heard, and do they fundamentally think that what is being proposed by Welsh Government gives adequate protection as well for tenants? So, Chair, that's my query for the Minister, in responding to this, because it's clear that we just have expounded two very different views of ways forward on this, and I'm interested as to whether the Minister has got the balance right in her proposals, and whether that's supported by the organisations out there. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you, Huw. Any other Members wish to speak? No. Then I call on the Minister to speak.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Delyth's amendments 12, 13 and 26 combined would remove the landlord's ability to serve notice under section 173 in relation to the vast majority of occupation contracts, replacing it instead with a range of mandatory and discretionary grounds, similar to the approach taken in Scotland, as she acknowledged. The new grounds are set out in Schedule 8ZA, and will require a landlord to provide a minimum 12 months' notice before a possession claim can be made. A landlord's ability to serve a section 173 notice would be retained only for occupation contracts set out in Schedule 8A. But, as I've said previously, I do not think it particularly matters to a contract holder who has done nothing wrong whether or not the landlord has a specific reason to seek possession, such as those listed in Delyth's amendment.

With regard to the listed grounds specifically, I'm not sure they would necessarily cover all of the instances where a landlord may wish to seek possession and, without detailed consideration of the reasons why a landlord may require possession of their property, it may result in a landlord being unable to regain possession entirely.

But also I just don't believe the balance is correctly struck between what is a mandatory ground and a discretionary ground. Why, for instance, is a mortgagee automatically entitled to a possession, but a landlord wishing to sell or return the property to a family home is not? And perhaps my greatest concern here is the existence of these grounds in conjunction with the requirement for a minimum 12 months' notice before a possession claim can be made.

There is indeed a balance to be struck between a contract holder having sufficient security of tenure and a landlord being able to obtain possession of their property. I think the proposed amendment tips the balance too far one way, and I fear has adverse consequences. We stress that the six months' notice period proposed under the Bill has been carefully considered, and we think strikes the right balance between the needs of the contract holder and the rights of a landlord.

I just want to stress at this point, in response to both Delyth and Huw, I guess, that there is no doubt that this is the most generous provision across the UK. The Scots method, if you do happen to fit within the proposal for being able to recover possession through no fault, because you need to get the house back, you have very little time in which to act on that in the Scottish system. We give people a lot longer to be able to do that.

So, our view is, if you have to leave your home through no fault of your own—and there is absolutely no way of stopping that, given the human rights implications; so, even the Scottish model acknowledges that—then what we're trying to do is give people the absolute maximum notice that we can in order for them to be able to find somewhere else for their family to go, in good order, and, hopefully, in the same catchment area for schools and all the rest of it. So, it's the time period, not the point. So, it doesn't matter to them whether the landlord has to sell their house because he's run out of money or because he needs to use it himself; what matters to them is the amount of time it will take them to find somewhere else to go in good order and not become homeless in between.

So, we have tried to strike the balance between what the Human Rights Act 1998 says about the ability to get hold of your own property, if you own it, if you need it for yourself and so on, and the tenant's need to leave in good order and in a situation where they can find somewhere else suitable to go, and to give them enough time to do that. So, I do think we've struck the balance there, and all the organisations who work with us can see that we have the most generous provision across the UK and are prepared to say so. You would need to change the way that the human rights Act is implemented to be able to ban it altogether, as everybody acknowledges, and so we think we've struck the best solution between the two balanced considerations here. So, I'm afraid, for those reasons, I don't support amendments 12, 13 and 26.

And then, turning to Mark's amendment 29, we have really serious concerns about how that would impact on a contract holder's security of tenure. The amendment makes a number of further grounds mandatory and enables a landlord to commence possession proceedings on any of the listed grounds on the same day as the notice is served, providing the contract holder with no notice at all. I cannot support the introduction of new mandatory grounds within a Bill aimed increasing secure of tenure. The use of mandatory grounds was considered very carefully by the Law Commission in preparing the renting homes Bill, and they remain in only a very small number of cases.

I'm also disappointed that this amendment places a landlord's desire to sell their property above the ability of a contract holder and their family to find a suitable home. Allowing a landlord to pursue a possession claim on the same day they have notified the contract holder of their desire to sell would obviously have a devastating impact, in my view. The Bill is seeking to extend the period a contract holder will have to find a suitable home, not reduce it, and for those reasons I could never support such an amendment as amendment 29. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Diolch yn fawr. I call on Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Okay, diolch yn fawr, Delyth. The question, then, is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? Okay, there is an objection, so we will move to a vote. Okay. So, in relation to amendment 12, we will vote by roll call. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Abstain.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Abstain.

And I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 12, there voted three against, one in favour, two abstentions, and it is not agreed.

Okay, the next amendment, then, is amendment 13.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will move to a vote. So, in relation to amendment 13, Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Abstain.

And I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 13, there voted one in favour, four against with one abstention, and it is not agreed.

Group 2 relates to notice periods. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 14, in the name of Delyth Jewell. I call on Delyth to move amendment 14 and speak to this amendment and other amendments in this group. Delyth.

The amendments in this group also reflect the position we have of wanting to end no-fault evictions, so these amendments extend the period of notice that must be given for a no-fault eviction, and we've provided several options, which is why we'll be pushing each of these to a vote. So, amendments 14 and 20 extend that period to a year, amendments 15 and 21 extend the period to two years, amendments 16 and 22 extend the period to three years, 17 and 23 extend the period to four years, 18 and 24 extend the period to five years, and amendments 19 and 25 extend the period to 10 years.

So, the reason that we've put these down is that we want to test, I suppose, or to get a temperature check for what Members think would be an acceptable notice period to give to tenants when they're not at fault themselves. So, six months, in my view, is not enough notice. And I take on board the points that we've heard not just today, but in earlier considerations of this Bill, about the need for balance, but I do think that we also should be keeping in mind—and I know that all Members do keep in mind, but being evicted will be a stressful and disruptive period. And that's particularly true for a family with young children, who might be settled in a local school. I'd ask why those children should face the disruption of frequently moving schools because we fail to provide long-term security of housing.

A six-month notice period just isn't enough time for many families in rural communities or Valleys communities to find alternative accommodation that's within the same catchment area for that school. Imagine, too, if their children are children with additional learning needs, as well as finding—maybe they find disruption to their routine very difficult. I just don't think that this will also be enough time for people with disabilities to always find alternative accommodation.

So, on that basis, I think that the Government's attempted compromise here—and I do accept why a compromise has tried to be sought, but I think that the compromises in the legislation as it stands stands in an uncomfortable position with some equalities laws for people with these very difficult circumstances and, indeed, with the rights of the child in some of these circumstances too. So, we've tabled a series of alternatives to correct this, and to start with the minimum acceptable time period for my group to consider supporting the legislation. Diolch.

Okay. Diolch, Delyth. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Then I call on the Minister to speak.

Thank you, Chair. As Delyth has said, amendments 14 to 19 set out alternative minimum notice periods that the landlord must give to end a periodic standard contract under section 173 of the 2016 Act. The notice periods range from 12 months—amendment 14—to 10 years—amendment 19—as she has just said. Amendments 20 to 25 do the same in relation to notices issued under a landlord's break clause in fixed-term standard contracts.

I understand entirely why Delyth is offering the committee the wide range of options in this matter, and, as she acknowledges, as with so many other issues in this Bill, it's about trying to find a reasonable balance between the interests of landlords and the interests of the contract holders. So, we've extensively consulted on this, and done quite a bit of balancing of the interests, and even the shortest alternative notice period proposed by Delyth doubles the current notice period in the Bill from six to 12 months.

So, the Bill's already increasing the notice period under section 173 from two to six months, and we've presented evidence in the explanatory memorandum in support of that. I do remain confident that that's the right length of time to ensure someone is able to find a suitable alternative home if served a notice under section 173, and I just want to remind the committee at this stage that we also stopped the notice being served in the first six months of a contract, so you have a minimum period of occupation of a year, because I do think that having to move every six months is clearly problematic. So, I think it's important to understand how they work together in the Bill, as well as just the notice periods. So, the notices cannot be served in the first six months of an occupation contract. We'll come on to them later on, but there are other provisions around not serving rolling notices and so on in order to stop people living constantly under the threat of an eviction. So, we've tried to strike a reasonable balance, and as I said in response to the first set of amendments, Chair, we think the reasonable balance is as set out in the Bill. It's also worth noting that the committee Stage 1 report highlights the issue of balance and also concluded the correct balance had been struck in the Bill.

We also want to remember that under the Bill as drafted, tenants in Wales have a greater security of tenure in relation to no-fault notice than anywhere else in the UK, as I said in response to the earlier one. It's greater security than the position in Scotland, where a tenant does not have to be at fault to receive only 28 days' notice in the first six months of a tenancy and less than three months' notice after that. So, for these reasons, whilst I absolutely appreciate where Delyth is coming from and what she's trying to achieve, I don't support Delyth's amendments because I think we've got the right balance set out in the Bill as is. 

Okay, I call on Delyth to reply to the debate.

I do take on board the point that the Minister makes with this, and I do acknowledge the welcome—what's datblygiadau in English?—developments that are represented in the Bill. Because of some of the particular worst-case scenarios or sharpest examples of disruption that some families could still face, I still will be pushing these amendments to a vote. I do think that, although the provisions that we've got that are in front of us are going to be favourable in comparison with other provisions across the UK, I don't think that that in itself would be a reason to stop just where we are. I know, again, that there will always be a compromise that the Minister's going to want to find with this, but because of the types of circumstances that I set out at the beginning, that the six-month notice period—and I take on board that that can't happen in the first six months of the tenancy—still would cause so much disruption and stress for people in particular circumstances, I'll be pushing this to a vote. But I appreciate what the Minister said. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr. If amendment 14 is agreed, amendments 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 fall. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we will then move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Against.

And I vote against. Therefore, there voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 14 is not agreed.

If amendment 15 is agreed, amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19 fall. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection, so we will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Against.

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 15 is therefore not agreed.

If amendment 16 is agreed, amendments 17, 18 and 19 fall. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection, so we will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Against.

And I vote against. There voted one in favour and five against, and amendment 16 is therefore not agreed. 

If amendment 17 is agreed, amendments 18 and 19 fall. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against. 

Mark Isherwood.

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour and five against, and amendment 17 is not agreed. 

If amendment 18 is agreed, amendment 19 falls. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Mark Isherwood. 

Against.

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour and five against, and amendment 18 is not agreed. 

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Mark Isherwood. 

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour and five against, and amendment 19 is therefore not agreed. 

If amendment 20 is agreed, amendments 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 fall. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against. 

Mark Isherwood. 

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 20 is not agreed. 

If amendment 21 is agreed, amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25 fall. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Mark Isherwood. 

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 21 is not agreed. 

If amendment 22 is agreed, amendments 23, 24 and 25 fall. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Mark Isherwood.

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 22 is not agreed. 

If amendment 23 is agreed, amendments 24 and 25 fall. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against. 

Mark Isherwood. 

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones.

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 23 is not agreed. 

If amendment 24 is agreed, amendment 25 falls. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against. 

Mark Isherwood.

Against. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones.

Against. 

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 24 is not agreed.

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Against.

And I vote against. There voted one in favour, five against, and amendment 25 is not agreed.

Group 3, then, relates to exemptions to the six-month notice period. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 31, in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark to move amendment 31 and speak to this amendment.

Diolch. Just as, separately, we need an amendment to address the likely difficulty, were the Bill to be passed in its current form, in repossessing in a timely manner accommodation held on charitable trust for the occupation of ministers of religion, amendment 31 seeks to ensure that properties owned by armed forces personnel who have been given notice to leave service accommodation are to be included in the list of contracts contained in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The effect of this amendment is to include properties owned by armed forces personnel to be subject to a two-month notice period, as opposed to extended notice period introduced by this Bill. Such an amendment was supported by the National Residential Landlords Association, who noted in their Stage 1 written evidence that the extension of the notice period under a section 173 notice to six months would have unintended consequences for forces personnel, who are usually given a three-month notice period to vacate service accommodation. This would mean that such individuals would not be able to access their own home in a timely manner and so may be forced to seek an emergency tenancy, becoming dependent upon housing services or even becoming homeless. This is not a trivial matter, where many Welsh members of the armed forces—some of whom have contacted me—maintain what they consider to be their first home in their own community in Wales but rent this out when the nature of their employment requires them to live elsewhere.

Okay, Mark. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No, then I call on the Minister to speak.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I have a lot of sympathy with the underlying issue here. My officials have been looking into the matter with colleagues from the armed forces liaison teams since it was raised with us previously by the NRLA, and further meetings with armed forces representatives are planned to consider the issues in more detail. What I can say this morning, though, is that amending the Bill to allow for such an exemption—if that's what we decide to do—isn't necessary, as the existing regulation-making powers we have available would enable us to add the exemption in any event. However, first we need to consider the matter in more detail in discussions with armed forces representatives and, in particular, consider the impact such an exemption would have on contract holders overall. So, whilst I don't support the amendment this morning, I'm happy to assure Mark and the committee that this is something we're actively looking into, and I'll be able to update the committee in due course.

Diolch yn fawr. I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Thank you. I welcome the Minister's comments that this is a matter that they're looking into and that they're speaking to the relevant bodies. Of course, there is a degree of concern that we haven't yet, because you haven't concluded this process, secured an assurance that this will be included either on the face of the Bill or in subsequent regulations. So, I feel I would like to put it to the vote, just to test the water, but, anticipating the outcome, I hope to hear something positive for those concerned prior to stage 3. Thank you.

Okay, Mark. The question, then, is that amendment 31 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. Sorry, Dawn, we didn't hear your vote. Could you vote again, please?

Okay. Huw.

Against.

Okay, thank you. Mark Isherwood.

Support.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

For.

And I vote against. Therefore, there voted two in favour with three against, with one abstention, and amendment 31 is not agreed. 

Group 4 relates to when notice may be given with regard to the periodic standard contract. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 27 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark to move amendment 27 and speak to this amendment and the other amendment in this group. Mark. 

Thank you. The intention of amendment 27, and the consequential amendment 34, is to allow for a six-month section 173 notice to be served after four months but still to take effect at the end of the six-month fixed term. The Bill as drafted will extend the minimum notice period required under a section 173 notice from two months to six months and restrict the issue of a section 173 notice until six months after the date of issue of a contract. The NRLA's recent survey found 88 per cent disagreed with extending the minimum notice period to six months. They also stated that increasing the notice period would make it more difficult and costly for landlords to evict tenants who exhibit anti-social behaviour, don't pay rent or breach tenancy terms. This is not a trivial matter. This would impact negatively on the supply of private rented sector housing, particularly for vulnerable tenants and in areas where such housing is most needed.

This amendment, therefore, is a sensible and pragmatic compromise amendment recommended by the NRLA. It's not seeking to re-fight battles lost but to identify and agree a way forward that will act to the benefit of all parties involved. It does not seek to disrupt—I emphasise, it does not seek to disrupt—the 12-month security of tenure established by the Bill, but to provide tenants with more notice and the landlord the flexibility to preserve the annual business cycle and ensure the current housing supply is not disrupted. It is therefore very much in the interests of both. As the NRLA state, such an amendment would

'make a really big difference'

to landlords, whilst this amendment was also supported by ARLA Propertymark, uniting the professionals who actually work in the field I used to work in, which was full of ethical, principled people.

Okay, thank you, Mark. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Then I call on the Minister to speak. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. These amendments allow for a section 173 notice to be served at any time after four months of occupation, providing that the notice doesn't seek possession in less than 12 months from the occupation date. So, my principal concern with this approach, as the committee also recognised in its Stage 1 report, is that I don't want to see someone subject to an eviction notice so soon after moving into their home. We know that that undermines their sense of security and adversely affects well-being. I really don't think expecting landlords to be able to arrange to serve a notice on a particular day is that onerous, and it only applies if they are intent on ensuring the contract lasts for exactly one calendar year. So, for those reasons, I continue to reject the approach set out in the amendments. Diolch. 

Okay. I call on Mark Isherwood, then, to respond to the debate.

Thank you. Well, it's not a question of belief. Professionals in the field have given their informed advice to the Minister and to committee that this will be a problem for them, with negative consequences, potentially, for all. Potentially, by supporting this amendment, you actually give the tenant longer notice, which other elements of this Bill seek to provide for, but also recognise the genuine business and financial and accounting cycle that these predominantly small businesses have to work within. It's a simple, painless, zero-cost tweak that would benefit everybody without compromising at all the core objective of this Bill and retaining the six- and 12-month periods referred to. I would be surprised—or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but concerned—that any Member would still wish to vote against this on that basis. 

Okay. If amendment 27 is agreed, amendment 26 falls. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Support.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

For.

And I vote against. There voted two in favour with four against, and amendment 27 is therefore not agreed.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 26?

Yes, please, Cadeirydd.

Okay, the question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Against.

Okay, and I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 26, there voted one in favour with five against, and it is not agreed.

Group 5 relates to when notice may be given with a fixed-term contract. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 1 in the name of the Minister. 

I move amendment 1 in the name of the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in this group. Gweinidog.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 1 relates to fixed-term standard contracts. I want to remind Members that a number of the provisions in the Bill have been included to prevent unscrupulous landlords from seeking to use fixed-term contracts as a way of circumventing the increased security of tenure being provided to contract holders under periodic standard contracts. So, there are already provisions in the Bill that prevent a landlord's break clause from being included in a fixed-term standard contract of less than 24 months, and to ensure that a notice under a landlord's break clause may only be issued after the first 18 months of a fixed-term contract have elapsed, and to increase the minimum notice period under a landlord's break clause to six months. 

The net effect of these provisions is to provide a de facto two years security of tenure in a fixed-term standard contract. However, this increased security could potentially be undermined if a landlord and contract holder were to agree a further fixed-term contract at the end of the first fixed term. As the Bill is currently drafted, there would be nothing to prevent a landlord from then including a break clause, or even a series of rolling break clauses in a subsequent fixed-term standard contract, agreed following the end of the first fixed term. 

Amendment 1 will prevent this by ensuring that if a landlord and contract holder enter into a further fixed-term contract of two years or longer at the end of the previous fixed-term contract, the landlord will have to wait at least 18 months from the beginning of the second contract before being able to give a six-month notice under the landlord's break clause. The amendment will effectively retain the same level of security for the contract holder as in the first fixed term, thereby removing the potential loophole that an unscrupulous landlord may seek to exploit. 

Amendment 11 is a consequential amendment that deletes a reference in Schedule 6 of the Bill to section 196(2) of the 2016 Act. Section 196(2) will be removed by amendment 1, so the reference is no longer appropriate. 

The net effect of Mark Isherwood's amendment 28 and consequential amendment 32 would be to allow a landlord to serve notice to end a fixed-term contract within the period of the fixed term itself, provided possession is not sought before 12 months. Exemptions to this are retained for certain contracts under a new Schedule, for example, supported standard contracts. It seeks to achieve this by removing section 10 of the Bill and proposing changes to section 186 that would allow a 12-month notice to be served on the day someone moves into their new home. I cannot support this approach for the same reason I cannot support the similar change Mark seeks to make in relation to periodic standard contracts. This undermines the sense of security someone has and adversely affects their well-being. 

However, there is a further reason why I cannot support this approach. I fear that it would result in one-year fixed terms becoming the predominant form of renting, which I do not think will achieve the overall uplift in security of tenure and well-being that we are seeking in this Bill. As one fixed term leads to another, the end point of each contract will become arbitrary to coincide with other important life changes, such as moving for work, family, or other reasons. The periodic standard contract under which the contract holder is able to give four weeks notice to end the contract provides contract holders with greater flexibility, and at the same time, the changes we are making through this Bill will require landlords to give six months' notice to end the contract where the contract holder is not at fault. 

And for these reasons, I ask the committee to support amendments 1 and 11 and reject amendments 28 and 32. Diolch. 

Diolch. I call on Mark Isherwood to speak. 

Thank you. The Minister's statement that these amendments seek to or will undermine the sense of security a person has, and therefore their sense of well-being, is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of these amendments, which is actually to act in the interests of the tenant, where they so choose, without being mandatory.

Amendment 28, and consequential amendment 32, would allow for a section 173 notice to be given within the initial period of a fixed-term standard contract, but would amend the minimum contract length to 12 months, whilst allowing for a six-month tenant-only break, if the landlord and tenant agree at the outset of the contract—agree at the outset of the contract—in line with existing provisions in section 190 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. This amendment is a sensible and pragmatic compromise amendment recommended by the NRLA. It aims to retain security of tenure for tenants whilst providing landlords with flexibility to preserve the annual business cycle. The amendment ensures that a tenant-only break clause can be inserted into a contract, but only if both tenant and landlord agree. Such an amendment recognises comments raised by ARLA Propertymark during Stage 1, that some tenants may prefer short-term flexibility within a contract that recognises their particular circumstances. For example, tenants may feel stuck in a fixed-term tenancy, which may limit where they work, where they want to live, and where their children go to school. This therefore seeks to provide the flexibility that some tenants may need and wish to exercise without requiring anybody to do this.

Okay. Thank you, Mark. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Then, I call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Cadeirydd. I absolutely accept what Mark is saying, and the majority of reasonable landlords—[Inaudible.]—but what we're doing here is merely replicating the arrangement in relation to a subsequent fixed-term contract. The Bill as drafted would have allowed the subsequent contracts to have more frequent break clauses, which could have been exploited by unscrupulous landlords. I do emphasise that. This isn't about the reasonable landlords who wouldn't have done this. This is about the power relationship and the possibility of exploitation by an unscrupulous landlord inserting a range of break clauses into a subsequent fixed-term contract, using the power relationship that they obviously have for a tenant in their property. So, what we're doing here is just replicating the arrangement for the original fixed-term contract onwards into subsequent fixed-term contracts, so I urge the committee to support my amendments and reject amendments 28 and 32.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. The question, then, is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

For.

Mark Isherwood.

Against.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Against.

And I vote in favour. Therefore, in relation to amendment 1, there voted four in favour with two against, and it is agreed.

Group 6 relates to restrictions on giving further notice. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 2, in the name of the Minister. 

I move amendment 2 in the name of the Minister, and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in this group. Minister.

Thank you, Chair. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 combine to give effect to the committee's recommendation regarding the withdrawal and reissue of notices. The amendments mean that landlords will be provided with 28 days rather than 14 days to withdraw and reissue a notice under section 173, without being made subject to the restriction on serving subsequent notices and without having to secure the contract holder's consent to do so. This allows slightly longer for a landlord to, for example, put right any error identified in a notice that has already been served. The amendments do this by simply removing the words '14 days' and replacing them with the words '28 days' in the relevant provisions in sections 7 and 8 of the Bill. Any reissued notice would still have to be for a minimum of six months. This does not reduce the notice period for contract holders. Whilst amendments 2, 3 and 4 relate to periodic standard contracts, amendment 5 provides the same 28-day window in relation to any landlord's break clause served under a fixed-term contract, thereby ensuring that a landlord who has entered into a fixed-term contract with a contract holder has the same opportunity to withdraw and reissue a notice they have served under the break clause. Diolch.

Okay. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Then there is no debate to reply to. Minister, is there anything further you would wish to add? No. Okay. The question, then, is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. Dawn, could you state your vote again, please?

Okay. Huw Irranca-Davies.

For.

Mark Isherwood.

For.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Abstain.

And I vote for. Therefore, in relation to amendment 2, there voted five in favour, with one abstention. Amendment 2 is therefore agreed.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 3 is agreed.

I move amendment 4 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 4 is agreed.

I move amendment 5 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 5 is agreed.

Mark, do you wish to move amendment 28?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

Support.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones. Could you vote again, Mandy?

For.

Okay. Mandy Jones has voted for. I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 28, there voted two in favour, three against, with one abstention, and it is therefore not agreed.

Mark, do you wish to move amendment 32?

Move.

Okay. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

For.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Support.

And I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 32, there voted two in favour, three against, one abstention, and it is not agreed.

Mark, do you wish to move amendment 29?

I move.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Mark Isherwood.

For.

Delyth Jewell.

Mandy Jones.

Support.

And I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 29, there voted two in favour, with four against, and it is therefore not agreed.

Group 7 relates to guidance. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 30 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark to move amendment 30 and speak to this amendment. Mark.

Amendment 30 places a duty, or seeks to place a duty, on Welsh Ministers to promote awareness of the provisions contained within the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, as amended by this Bill, and to publish guidance on the provisions contained within this Bill. In written evidence, a number of stakeholders, including Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru, Cardiff Council and Tai Pawb, argued that, given the scope of the changes to the sector, it is essential to ensure that all stakeholders—contract holders, landlords, local authorities and other key stakeholders—are aware of the new requirements, as well as to help ensure that any concerns are addressed before the provisions are enacted. For example, Cardiff Council—to show that I'm not showing north Wales bias here—wrote that providing this information is essential to ensure that everyone is familiar with the new requirements, whilst Tai Pawb argued that it is vitally important that resources are committed to raising tenants' awareness of the new legislation and their rights, and that the mechanisms to engage with private rented sector tenants in Wales are lacking or are underfunded. I will be moving this amendment. 

Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. I call on the Minister to speak. 

Thank you, Chair. This amendment would place a duty on Welsh Ministers to promote awareness of and publish guidance in relation to the provisions of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act at least six months before it fully comes into force. However, there will be a comprehensive communications strategy in addition to all the necessary guidance on the Act. We will work closely with representatives of landlords and contract holders to ensure they are informed effectively, ensuring nobody should be unclear about how the legislation works. I have every intention of ensuring that every aspect of this amendment is achieved before the legislation is implemented and, for those reasons, whilst I agree entirely with the sentiment, amendment 30 is unnecessary, and I cannot support it. 

I call on Mark Isherwood to respond. 

My only comment would be that I'm pleased to hear the Minister say she has every intention of carrying out everything that this amendment would seek to achieve, but if that's the case, why not underpin it by including it within the Bill, to ensure that now, and in the future, this is safeguarded for the interests of all parties? 

Okay. So, I take it, obviously, that you wish to proceed to a vote on the amendment. 

I would, thank you. 

Okay. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Dawn Bowden. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Mark Isherwood. 

For. 

Delyth Jewell. 

Mandy Jones. 

Support. 

And I vote against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 30, there voted three in favour and three against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii). Therefore, amendment 30 is not agreed. 

Group 8 relates to miscellaneous amendments to the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 6 in the name of the Minister. 

I move amendment 6 in the name of the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in this group—Minister.