The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the debate on a Member’s legislative proposal, and I call on Dawn Bowden to move the motion. Dawn Bowden.

Motion NDM6301 Dawn Bowden

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes a proposal for an amendment to the Housing Act (Wales) 2014.

2. Notes that the purpose of the amendment would be to outlaw the practice of landlords advertising properties for free rent in return for sexual favours.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Right. ‘Free room to spare for a woman willing to carry out household chores naked.’ ‘Free accommodation, willing to offer more intimate favours.’ Extracts from a sleazy magazine or novel? No. These are part of actual adverts placed by landlords on Craigslist or Gumtree, offering accommodation rent-free in return for sexual favours. And are these isolated incidents? Well, unfortunately, not.

If you search #sexforrent, you will find hundreds of adverts like this. Initially, this practice seems to have developed in major cities, such as London, Birmingham and Bristol, but it’s certainly spreading across the UK. And it now appears to have taken hold in Scotland, and, regrettably, we’re starting to see this happening in Wales.

For example, a recent Cardiff advert stated, ‘Flats to let. One- and two-bedroom apartments in Cardiff and the Valleys. Tenants with benefits must reply with a picture.’ In Bridgend: ‘Would welcome someone who enjoys a naturist lifestyle. If you’re looking for a room to rent and into the lifestyle, get in contact with some details about yourself. This is not a first-come, first-served basis, we’ll want to meet and get to know, and discuss the ground rules and services required.’

Research by Shelter in August 2016 revealed 288 adverts offering free accommodation on the Craigslist site, and a further 51 offering accommodation for under £10 a month, most of which made either direct or veiled references to sexual favours in return.

I thank the Member for giving way. When one of my constituents heard about this debate, they approached me to say that they wanted attention drawn to the fact that properties are rarely let for free in return for sex, but are often at a discount, which I think the Member has just referred to. And in her experience, this is what happened in London very often, that it was at a discount that properties were let. So, would she agree that that is a practice?

That is certainly the information that we have found, and even some of the advertisements that we’ve seen in Cardiff are actually offering rent for as little as a £1 for each month for accommodation, but to go along with sexual favours. So, why are we suddenly witnessing a spread of what can only be described as a vile and exploitative practice here? I think there can be little doubt that the homelessness problem, which affects many areas of the UK, but which is more prevalent in cities and deprived areas, has allowed unscrupulous and predatory landlords to exploit some of the most vulnerable in our society to satisfy their own sordid behaviours. We saw this happen in Paris during the height of its housing crisis in the previous decade, when the practice of accommodation for sexual favours became commonplace, and the Government there was forced to act with a major programme to deliver affordable housing, which they’d highlighted as the main contributory factor.

In this country, the issue has been picked up by some national media, including the BBC, ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Times’, and was also raised recently in the Westminster Parliament by Hove MP, Peter Kyle, in relation to the problems in England. It was brought to my attention by Merthyr Valleys Homes, and I thank them very much for doing so.

If you are in any doubt about the motives of such landlords, and the basis upon which they believe they can behave in such a way, you only need to look at some of the justifications they gave to media when they were tackled about the adverts they had placed. One landlord defended it to BBC South East as being a ‘friend with benefits arrangement’, adding,

You can argue that high rent charged by landlords is taking advantage too. There’s no compulsion for them to do this…. Both sides have something the other person wants. I see it as a win-win situation.’

I bet he does. But there can be no doubt that these landlords are exploiting vulnerable people who cannot afford spiralling rents, by enticing them with the sex-for-rent deals. They would no doubt argue that tenants have chosen voluntarily to enter into these arrangements. The trouble is when you have a vulnerable person, who then becomes exploited, the concept of choice disappears, and this is tantamount to a form of modern-day slavery.

Through these adverts, these men—and in all cases identified, it is men—are intentionally targeting desperate women, and sometimes men, who feel that they have no other option—women and men who may already have experienced sexual or domestic violence. Research has shown that a large proportion of rough sleepers, a significant target for these landlords, have experienced some form of domestic violence, something that I can testify to from what I discovered during my time as a volunteer in the Merthyr night shelter over the winter of this year. But it’s not just the exploitation that occurs when the vulnerable person moves into the property under such an arrangement. Many of the adverts mirror the one in Bridgend, which I referred to earlier, and require a prospective tenant to meet up with the landlord beforehand to be checked out. This, in itself, exposes that vulnerable person to further risk.

So, my greatest concern is that this practice will become more prevalent unless action is taken to prevent it. And whilst the coverage of this issue by the national media is welcome, it does, of course, run the risk of making more unscrupulous landlords aware of the practice, and perhaps encouraging them to behave in the same vile manner. But neither can we ignore the fact that this is all set in the context of the impact of the Government’s programme of benefit cuts. The Tories’ local housing allowance cap for the under-35s, and other benefit caps for those under 22, will place many more people into vulnerable situations, making them the most likely targets and victims of these sexual predators. Llywydd, the astonishing thing about this whole sordid business is that this is actually legal. Why? Well, because in most cases no money is exchanged as part of any arrangement, and as such it is not even covered by legislation surrounding prostitution.

So, I welcome the opportunity to bring forward this legislative proposal today because this situation cannot be right, and I believe that we should be doing all we can to maintain our proud record here in Wales of being at the forefront of introducing legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our society. I’m sure that every Member of this Assembly will share my disgust at the sort of practice I have detailed here this afternoon, and will join me in asking the Cabinet Secretary and Welsh Government to consider any amendments to the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 that would make Wales the first nation of the UK to outlaw the practice of advertising free or reduced rents in return for sexual favours. Surely, this National Assembly and this Welsh Government will not stand by and allow such dreadful exploitation to continue because of legal loopholes. Together, we must find a way of putting a stop to this in Wales.

I can say I’m in great sympathy with the Member’s proposal, and until I saw this on the order paper I didn’t know that it was as prevalent as we now learn. And I do congratulate her for bringing forward an idea that clearly speaks to a great need at the moment, and a way that we could change the law and make it much more fit for purpose and protective of the most vulnerable.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

If this practice is evident—and I think we did hear evidence of that even in Wales, and it’s certainly evident in other parts of the United Kingdom—and, sorry to say, growing, it is obviously a morally repugnant practice. I don’t think anyone could look at the facts of this matter and feel otherwise. As Dawn said, the law may be ambiguous in this area and therefore should be clarified, but that such practices are exploitative is beyond question. I think it must put some people in a terrible position, where they are vulnerable from the start to any whim or change in that situation, where there is potential for abuse and violence, and it really is no situation for anyone to go into and, of course, they wouldn’t go in freely; I think that is quite obviously the case.

I think Dawn was right to talk about the wider issues, particularly the problem of the housing crisis. We do have a terrible shortage of affordable homes, and I was interested to hear about the approach taken in Paris—that they saw that as the root of the issue, and that’s what they sought to tackle. I’ve called in this Chamber for a long time for greater ambition in terms of house building, and I do think that is very, very important. I think our generation has lost sight of this—I don’t make a party point here; I think it’s true of all parties—about what an essential need housing is. After the second world war people realised that, obviously, in those shocking circumstances. I think I can begin to understand how some people could get so desperate that they would think of something as horrible as this as an alternative. We may understand their situation, but I don’t think we’re doing much for those people if we’re not tackling the root cause.

I thought Dawn was very apposite as well in looking at the way modern media and advertising platforms have made this sort of activity more feasible, I guess. And, again, I think we need to be very aware of the fact that there are, amongst all the people out there who are good landlords, a small proportion who may be tempted into this sort of vile behaviour. Now, unfortunately, the means to achieve these nefarious purposes are more readily available. If it was much more difficult to do this, then they may not be tempted in the first place, but at the moment I think we have to face the fact that modern media and advertising do open the door to this sort of exploitation.

Can I just finish by commending the Presiding Office on this initiative? Because it’s a new thing that we allow Members who unfortunately didn’t win the ballot—I’ve always thought it strange that you win a ballot, but there we are, that’s, I suppose, the way we have to term it. Of course, it’s just serendipity if you do win and are able to take your idea forward. I think debates like this allow Members who’ve come up with key ideas to talk about them. And, you know, the Government is listening and other parties are listening in terms of forming their next manifestos. I do hope that we will see at some point a change in law that did start from this sort of debate. Thank you very much.

Plaid Cymru supports this proposal. Clearly, it is entirely unacceptable that landlords provide accommodation free of charge, but expecting to be ‘paid’ with sexual favours, and I truly hope that there is a way of preventing this. Unfortunately, as we have heard, there is evidence that this is happening in London, Bristol, Birmingham, in Scotland, and, unfortunately, now here in Wales too. There is some evidence that it is happening across the world, and there were reports recently of people in a number of countries advertising accommodation free of charge for sexual favours, be it a house or flat share or a spare room. People are forced into these unacceptable situations due to a combination of reasons, including high rents and high house prices in cities, and the fact that most young people have to live in these cities in order to start their careers.

I do hope that this amendment to the housing Act can prevent this from happening, if the motion is approved. But, even if the practice is prohibited, it will be difficult to take action against those who break the law because of the hidden nature of the crime. First of all, people who rent a room out in their own house don’t get captured under the landlord licensing system, and, secondly, victims could decide not to report the offences to police because they fear that they will be evicted by the landlord and thereby made homeless. The Metropolitan Support Trust report states that reporting on the offences will create additional concerns and anxieties for some victims. So, there is no assurance that including this amendment in legislation and changing the legislation would lead to the change that we all want to see.

Therefore, what would make a real difference ultimately? Well, as David Melding has mentioned, part of the solution certainly is to provide more affordable housing. If there are more appropriate houses available at affordable rents, then fewer people will be forced into these unacceptable situations. We also need to ensure that there are homeless prevention services and shelters of an acceptable standard so that people feel confident in leaving a situation where they are facing abuse. But perhaps there is a social, moral question at play here too in terms of gender equality and the use of sex as a weapon by one person against another, and, more often, it’s a male using that weapon on a woman. But that’s perhaps a broader issue for discussion on another day.

To conclude, therefore, improving legislation could help. Discussing the issue here today and raising the profile of the issue is sure to help too. But I also believe that we need to address those long-term issues if we are to see real change and the scrapping of this practice once and for all.

Can I thank Dawn Bowden for tabling this very important motion today? I think it’s really positive that this has been brought to the floor of the Senedd and that we’re all having the opportunity to discuss it. It is a very serious issue and my fear is that it will become a much higher risk here in Wales as some of the changes that we are seeing start to bite. We know that we’ve got more welfare reform that is hitting us and that we’re likely to see large groups of people, particularly those aged 18 to 21, excluded from claiming housing benefit and also restrictions on those under 35, who will only be able to claim housing benefit on a room in a shared house. I believe that this could well lead to a rise in unregistered landlords allowing vulnerable women and men to stay with them in accommodation owned by them, rent free, in exchange for sex. Because some of these people are so marginalised and vulnerable, and because this group of landlords will not be registered under Rent Smart Wales, they’re possibly going to be very difficult to find and to protect from this practice.

I think it’s also important to bear in mind that, at a time of shrinking budgets in local authorities, there’s likely to be a decline in enforcement action in this area, making it harder to seek out and find such landlords. So, we do need to be very vigilant about that as well. So, I do hope that the Welsh Government will give very serious consideration, and I, too, welcome the fact that the Presiding Office is giving us this opportunity to have an early debate on this issue. I did speak to Llamau—which, as the Cabinet Secretary will know, has a very strong track record of working with vulnerable young people and women—before this debate. I know that they’ve expressed support for this kind of measure, and I hope that the Welsh Government will go out, now, to consult with organisations working in the field to get their views on how such an initiative could work in practice. And I hope too that Dawn’s very valuable action in bringing this to the floor of the Senedd will raise the profile of this issue and warn people of the risks that are out there. Thank you very much.

Like David Melding, I wasn’t really aware of this issue until I saw what appeared on the agenda for today’s Plenary session. So, I’ve looked at the adverts on Craigslist and they were a bit of an eye-opener. I was somewhat surprised to see discounted rent being offered fairly openly for sexual favours, and, clearly, this is a regrettable development that we have, caused by issues that other Members have raised, such as lack of housing, shortage of housing. So, clearly, it’s happened in London first, where they have the biggest demand for housing, but Dawn has pointed out that it is in danger of becoming a widespread practice in Wales. So, if we can take action to prevent this development, then I think that would be a good step to take.

Of course, in reality, there have always been a certain number of landlords—a small proportion of landlords—who have taken a keen interest in doing viewings and in personally screening prospective tenants, and offers have been made of this kind of nature, perhaps in a slightly more veiled way, but, of course, these offers are often declined. This is anecdotal evidence—you know, this has been a practice, but only affecting a small number of tenants and landlords. So, obviously, we don’t really want the development of social media advertising, as David Melding pointed out, to actually make this practice more widespread. So, in UKIP, we do believe that openly encouraging mainly young people—mainly young women, although some men, as well—to become involved in a form of prostitution just because of their housing needs—. It is obviously very reprehensible and we do support the proposal.

Thank you very much. I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to begin by thanking Dawn for giving us the opportunity to express our concern at this practice that landlords, or, more commonly, those taking in lodgers, should be advertising accommodation rent-free in return for sexual favours. That is abhorrent to us all. I condemn this devious practice, which takes advantage of the poverty and social inequality of the people it preys on, and I absolutely agree that we should do all that we can to expose and deter the exploiters.

In preparation, Llywydd, for this debate, I asked my officials to explore all the potential avenues for action on this, and I must admit I was slightly surprised by some of their findings. For example, as Dawn Bowden alluded to, the Home Office officials’ advice is that advertising for buying and selling of sex in itself is not illegal in England or Wales, and, whilst many of the associated activities, such as exploitation, could well be a criminal offence, they claim to have very little evidence that actual exploitation is taking place in these specific cases. Of course, this may well reflect a level of underreporting, rather than the absence of exploitation. I pick up on Sian Gwenllian’s point on that issue around that the individuals who are entrapped into this scenario should never be afraid to report, and, while the issue may not be unlawful, exploitation is, and I would encourage all who find themselves in this space to use the Live Fear Free helpline that we have in place. Let me be clear, Llywydd: this Government is committed to tackling violence against women, sexual violence and exploitation in all forms in Wales, and we continue to work closely with the Home Office and criminal justice agencies in Wales to ensure effective co-operation.

This is a complex issue, and this goes far beyond how we regulate housing and exposes some worrying social trends. What strikes me here is that sex for rent is a symptom of a more fundamental problem: the increasing difficulties young people generally face in securing affordable, safe accommodation. And, whilst we may not have the powers to tackle unpleasant specific symptoms, we are already working to address the underlying difficulties faced by young people seeking to secure good-quality, secure accommodation. The answer lies in our approach to preventative measures in reducing homelessness, the provision of affordable housing, mitigating the economic pressures from zero-hours contracts and benefits changes, our anti-slavery policies, and initiatives around our support services for vulnerable people with multiple needs.

I listened to David Melding’s contribution, and I’m hoping that now he may have had a change of view in terms of our position on ending the right to buy. The Member has been very keen and clear in his contributions both in the Chamber here and in committee about his concerns about removing the right and the ending of right to buy, but what we do know about the right to buy is that many of the properties that have been sold under the right to buy end up in the private landlord sector, and this is where most of this activity takes place. So, I’m really concerned that the Member is saying we should gain more housing, and also that we should protect the opportunities for people to live safely—I hope the Member’s had a change of view; he may be able to declare that today.

I haven’t had a change of view, and I’m slightly surprised that you’ve made this connection. What we need to agree on is that we need to build more homes, and many of those homes need to be in the social sector. There is no disagreement, it seems to me, in this Chamber about that, and that’s what we should focus on.

Well, I’m sure the Member will have much time to consider his contribution again, and maybe he will come round to our way of thinking, but I’m grateful for his views. These are not quick and easy issues to address, and my colleague is right in terms of that we need to look at the specific issues for rent for sex. Our opinions are, however, limited. An amendment to the registration and licensing system under Part 1 of the housing Act, which Dawn refers to, will simply not tackle the issue on its own, but what it does mean is that we shouldn’t not do anything to seek to curb this awful practice.

I quite understand why this is perceived as a matter of housing law. Legally, however, the roles of landlords and tenants do not apply where sex rather than money is exchanged for accommodation, and this is simply not a legal contract that can be governed by housing law. That is even clearer when we’re talking about an owner allowing someone to share their home. The landlord and agent registration scheme and licensing system, Rent Smart Wales, means that landlords and agents who carry out letting and management activities need to be a fit-and-proper person who are well trained and abide by the code. I’m happy to explore ways we might use the fit-and-proper-person test in this case to render exploiters who are landlords unfit to hold a licence as a landlord. I will continue to update Members on that issue.

We can also seek to stop the advertising of this, as well, but the legality of these advertisements rests on ambiguity and lack of specific detail. I am aware that the Scottish Government has written to Craigslist, and we will look at the response of that very carefully on that detail. I intend to write to the Home Office to flag our concerns of this debate today and what should be done to assess, what can be done to address, the issues in a more proactive manner. I simply do not believe that the cases raised in the press, and others like them, do not amount to exploitation or any other criminal activity. I will follow that up also.

I’ve already started discussions with the police to see where that will lead us, and I, of course, have listened very carefully to the contributions of Members today. I remain open to suggestions of any further action that we should take. We are united in our disgust about those exploiting others and the needs of the vulnerable in our communities. The question is one of finding an effective way of tackling this, and I’m sure we can work together to resolve this issue.

Thank you. I call on Dawn Bowden to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and can I thank all of those who contributed to the debate? I think the responses were fairly consistent in the debate in terms of looking at some of the issues that are responsible for the spread of this type of exploitation. David Melding, quite rightly, acknowledged the vulnerability of people that allows this kind of exploitation to take place, and actually, the Cabinet Secretary took the words out of my mouth in terms of the housing crisis that we are now facing, and I do welcome the initiatives that Welsh Government have put in place to try to deal with that—the affordable new homes and so on. I think it would be too simplistic just to talk about the housing crisis in the wider sense without looking at the historical reasons for that. I think you were absolutely right, Cabinet Secretary, to raise the history behind the right to buy, and what that legacy has left, meaning that we are left with the limited social housing that we have, and the inability to provide affordable housing.

I think we also have to acknowledge, as was acknowledged by David Melding and by Sian Gwenllian, and indeed Lynne Neagle, that we are also seeing the effects of changes to the benefits system, and that is not going to change any time soon, as long as we end up with a Conservative Government in Westminster. I’m afraid that just happens to be a matter of fact. And can I also thank Gareth Bennett for the support of UKIP in terms of the proposal as well? In relation to the Government’s position on this, can I thank, again, the Cabinet Secretary, for his offer to work with any organisations that can find a way to try to deal with this issue? I’m not a lawyer; I don’t understand the legislative constraints, but I know that you are advised by legal experts. But I think I would be safe to say that there seems to be a fair amount of cross-party support for what we’re trying to achieve here, which is somehow shutting down this legislative loophole that allows people to put adverts like this on internet sites, or elsewhere, that are perfectly legal. And whether we can access or change the way in which we can address this by using laws around exploitation—I think I would welcome the Cabinet Secretary doing that, either by writing to the Home Office, having discussions with the Scottish Government, who clearly seem to be trying to deal with this, or looking at any other way in which the Welsh Government can legislate to try to stamp out this exploitation. Thank you.

Thank you. The proposal is to note this proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we’ll defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.