The next group of amendments is the group relating to the coming into force of the abolition provisions. Amendment 12 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. David Melding.

Amendment 12 (David Melding) moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. As you said, this is the final group and I move the lead amendment—amendment 12.

This amendment will ensure that the abolition of the right to buy and associated rights may not come into effect until at least two years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As currently drafted, abolition would come into effect after one year. Additionally, amendment 4 is a consequence of amendment 12.

I believe that there is considerable scope for the right to buy grace period to be extended for two years, as it was in Scotland. During our Stage 1 committee proceedings, it was pointed out that the 2011 Measure provided that, where the right to buy was suspended for the maximum duration of 10 years, local authorities were required to wait two years before submitting a further application. According to the Welsh Government's guidance for local authorities on applications to suspend the right to buy and related rights, this was to allow, and I quote, 'a reasonable amount of time' for tenants to consider whether to exercise the right to buy before the authority could apply for another suspension, creating a very clear precedent, in my view.

Given this, Mr Clarke of Welsh Tenants questioned why a shorter time period of 12 months was provided in the Bill for the purpose of enabling tenants to undertake the same considerations ahead of abolition. Additionally, concerns were raised about a potential spike in sales ahead of abolition, which some respondents linked to the 12-month notice period.

Llywydd, these are all significant reasons, in my view, why the grace period should be extended from one year to two. The abolition of the right to buy will have a huge impact on the lives of many aspirational home owners living in the social sector. I have received lots of correspondence on this issue, and I'm sure that other Members have had a similar experience.

Some committee members at Stage 2 raised the objection that this potential law we're considering this afternoon is already in the public domain, so people are already aware of it and its timescale. I have to say I do find this a fairly idealised view of how the public engage with the legislature, but, anyway, I simply don't accept the argument. We cannot implement a piece of fundamental legislation like this with a timescale that is based on the assumption that people will probably be aware of what we're discussing here in the Assembly. During Stage 1, and I reflect on my own constituents' cases, I heard from tenants who weren't even aware that suspension was going ahead in their area, and they were meant to have been consulted. So, I think we must realise this is going to land like a bombshell on the mats of some people when they get that information that the Minister's assured us, despite the lack of a duty to inform, they will get, and I'm pretty sure they will. I don't think the Government is playing fast and loose there, even if I don't think they've chosen the best method to inform tenants and landlords.

So, what we don't want, I think, following the Bill's implementation, is a situation where tenants are taking decisions too quickly. A two-year period will provide reassurance to tenants that they still have a significant amount of time left, should they wish to proceed with the purchase of their homes. That's a second and powerful argument to have a two-year period. Also, a two-year grace period should dampen any expected spike in sales. It is more likely that tenants will take their time and this will lead to a spread of applications, rather than an immediate surge. This was, indeed, the case in Scotland, where a two-year grace period was given to tenants following the abolition of the right to buy in Scotland, and there wasn't any immediate influx of purchases. If you look at their sales, they stayed in a fairly similar pattern.

So, I think there are very clear, practical reasons for extending the grace period from one to two years, and I urge the Assembly to support this amendment.

Galwaf ar y Gweinidog Tai ac Adfywio, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. The notice period between Royal Assent and final abolition strikes the right balance between protecting social housing stock and giving tenants reasonable notice that the rights are ending. Provisions within the Bill ensure that tenants will receive information within two months of Royal Assent. This gives them a further 10 months before final abolition to submit an application to buy their property.

Twelve months is a fair and reasonable amount of time. It gives tenants sufficient time to take proper financial and legal advice on the implications of home ownership. The case in Scotland has been mentioned, and the Scottish Parliament agreed a notice period of two years between Royal Assent and final abolition, although the committee that scrutinised the Bill in Scotland recommended a minimum period of a year. The Scottish legislation also didn't contain any detailed provisions to ensure that information was provided to all relevant tenants as soon as possible following Royal Assent, which is a key provision for our Bill. The right to buy ended in Scotland on 31 July 2016, and, throughout the year to the end of September 2016, there were 37 per cent more applications during the year than the previous year. So, there certainly was a spike in Scotland, despite the fact that they had a two-year period.

So, in Wales, tenants will be able to exercise the right to buy at any time up until the date of abolition, and this process does not have to be completed before abolition takes place. The report from the ELGC committee stated that the majority of stakeholders were content with a 12-month notice period. The ELGC report concluded that

'the minimum 12 month notice period strikes an appropriate balance between

the need to provide tenants with adequate time to exercise their rights, and the need to prevent the further loss of social housing stock as swiftly as possible.' 

I therefore ask Members to reject amendment 12 and related amendment 4.

Can I just concede one point, that the 12 months, in effect, is more than that? Because it's during those 12 months you've got to express your intention to exercise the right to buy, and then if that intention is expressed, then it could actually formally then be exercised during the period after 12 months. So, that is a help, and I was pleased that the Government made that clear in committee, and I'm grateful that the Minister has reaffirmed that this afternoon. So, I'll at least give you a cheer for that.

But, in general, I have to say that I think a two-year period on such a fundamental change in the rights people have, and have had for many, many decades, is appropriate. It is what happened in Scotland, and obviously there's the big difference between what the Welsh Government intends to do, compared to the Scottish Government. You may be right, they may have been wrong, but I think we needed some sort of justification why you don't think that two years is more appropriate. Given all that you've heard about the popularity of this policy, the strong evidence we've heard from tenants—and they wanted much more flexibility and nuance in this approach, in the way the Bill would operate—and we've just had an obdurate response, frankly.

I have to say, Llywydd, that on this side of Chamber we were very disappointed that the right to buy was going to be abolished. We argued—and we would still argue, if we could go back to this—that the right to buy should be reformed. That's what's going to happen in England, and that is the direction we should have taken. But the decision was made, and we genuinely attempted to offer ways of strengthening this Bill from the point of view of reflecting the rights and needs of tenants to the maximum, without undermining the central intent. But obviously, we have failed in that, and I think that will now stand on record. Obviously, this issue is not going to go away. It will remain, I think, primarily a question of housing supply, and if we don't build enough houses, particularly family homes, where we could be short of 50,000 or 60,000 by 2030 on current projections, then we're going to have real, real issues. That does remain the most important thing we have to sort out.

Do you not accept that the problem could be solved overnight if the Treasury allowed local authorities to borrow against the value of their housing stock in order to build houses, which they did in the 1950s and the 1960s, but the Treasury and the Tories don't let them do now?

Okay. Well, you know, Mike, I've said that we need to build more houses. I've said that I'm happy with councils building houses now. In fact, I said that, I think, before colleagues in Westminster, in my party, came round to this. We just need to build. Whatever the necessary mechanisms or the help that would allow us to do that, I'm going to be very pragmatic. That's all I can say.

So, it will remain, principally, an issue of supply. I have to say, on that issue, that certainly during the life of the fifth Assembly, in the housing debates and all the interventions I've been able to make, I have consistently challenged the housing projections, asked the Government to accept the alternative projection that they commissioned Professor Holmans to come up with, and pushed and pushed on this issue. Now we are seeing some intimations of change. I notice the sector out there is getting a bit more demanding about the number of social homes we should have, and I think that that is a good thing. We do need to build many, many more homes.

But I believe, as do my colleagues, that the right to buy was a liberating and expansive policy for many, many people. How many? Well, 150,000 or so took this opportunity. It's become less popular because now it's perhaps not as attractive to as many people that remain in social housing. Given the price of houses, we are probably going to see the need for greater social housing provision anyway, but it was a fantastically successful policy. It remains a popular policy, as we saw in the evidence in the committee, and from views expressed by tenants and polling evidence out there. I do tell you this: I don't think we've seen the last of the right to buy. I think it is going to be an issue that will return, and there will always be its champions on this side, who will sing that song of a method of great home ownership that many people aspire to.

If amendment 12 is not agreed to, amendment 4 falls. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed—amendment 12, that is.

Amendment 12: For: 14, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 4 fell.

We have therefore reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed. And that, therefore, concludes our Stage 3 proceedings.

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

The meeting ended at 18:01.