The next group of amendments is group 2, which relates to the abolition period. Amendment 6 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 6 (David Melding) moved.

Thanks, Llywydd, and I move amendment 6. I'll speak to the other amendments.

Amendment 6 has been submitted with the intention of limiting the Act's operation to 10 years, following which the Welsh Ministers may lay regulations proposing that the abolition is made permanent. These regulations would be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and so would require a vote by the Assembly.

Both amendments 13 and 2 are consequential to the lead amendment and its implementation.

Llywydd, the Welsh Conservatives have submitted several alternative and constructive options to the abolition of the right to buy, because we recognise the opportunities that right to buy has provided, and still provides, for hundreds of families throughout Wales. But, as I hinted earlier, we're not deaf to some of the concerns people have had about aspects of the right-to-buy policy. Such alternative options have included reforming the receipts system so that it operates on a like-for-like basis, or the amending of the right to buy so that new builds are exempt from the policy until they have been socially rented tenancies for a minimum period of time.

Alas, I've not been able to persuade the Government of these alternatives, which I very much regret. As I said earlier, we have to concede that the principle has been accepted. So, the purpose of this amendment is at least to urge the Government to reflect on the policy after a 10-year period. This amendment would also complement recent announcements in regard to an increased investment in the supply of social housing, which we've heard is so important. The Prime Minister has recently promised to invest an additional £2 billion in affordable housing over two years from 2019, and most of that is expected to be in council housing. I very much hope we are going to see that sort of ambition and policy emerge in Wales with the Welsh Government also. 

So, an increased investment in social housing and the option of a reformed right to buy becomes more viable, in my view, even in the minds of critics. After all, the Welsh Government, as I understand, do not oppose the right to buy in principle. If this is so—and it was stated by the Cabinet Secretary in Stage 1 and 2 proceedings—this amendment should cause the Government no difficulty. It does not go against their fundamental intention in the Bill. After all, if the situation, in their view, is no better in 10 years' time, then they could persuade this Chamber to abolish the right to buy permanently. That would be permissible under the amendment I am making. 

Can I say, Llywydd, that in political debates across the world there's been a whole shift to post-legislative scrutiny? In many ways, this amendment encompasses those principles. The House of Lords Constitution Committee stated that Parliament's responsibility for legislation should not end once a Bill has become an Act, and I think the Assembly can reflect that by having this sort of provision of going back and looking at a Bill after 10 years, and then having a vote on whether it should continue.

I would say that this type of approach—of another affirmative vote after a period of time—has firm precedence on fundamental pieces of legislation that involve people's rights. Parliament has used that mechanism, and therefore I think it is a logical thing for us to do. So, I do hope that the Chamber will accept this innovative way of getting to some sort of compromise, and perhaps holding out the hope to those who really do believe it's a supply issue, and that fundamentally the right to buy can exist in a reasonable housing policy that has social housing and the excellence of social housing at its heart. I so move the amendment. 

I think it’s quite apparent what the intention of these amendments is. The amendments, were they to be passed, would restrict the implementation of the Act to 10 years, and following that, Welsh Ministers could bring forward regulations that would make the abolition permanent. Now, I would argue that these amendments are entirely unnecessary. In 10 years’ time, or at any point in the future, any Government could legislate in order to re-introduce the right to buy, and new legislation would be the subject of far more scrutiny that any regulations would be. So, whatever your view of the principle underpinning this Bill, if you are in favour of full legislative scrutiny, then vote against this group of amendments.

I absolutely agree with what Siân Gwenllian has just said. It seems to me that it's perfectly possible for the Assembly to reverse this Act were the situation to change. But I do not think there's anything innovative about what David Melding is proposing. Had you come forward with a proposal to allow a local authority that has no housing waiting list and that is having difficulty filling those homes—that would be a proposal that I would look on with great interest, because I think that is a situation where it would be perfectly possible to let that housing go from the social sector. But whilst we have the huge numbers of people awaiting a decent home that have accumulated over the last 36 years, where we've allowed all these properties to leave the social housing sector, and they've not been replaced in the 36 years since Mrs Thatcher introduced it—that is what has created the tragedy that we have today.

I do not think that the proposals proposed by the UK Government last week to build 300,000 homes a year, when they have done so little in the last seven years, are anything other than a chimera. There's not a single one of these illusory new homes being built, as far as I am aware—as council housing, in any case. When did the market ever provide the homes that ordinary families on average income actually need? I remember the squalor of the 1960s and the 1970s when some Labour local authorities had to buy up whole streets of decaying inner-city properties from private landlords and turn them into council homes—a tangible and potent demonstration of state power making up for market failure. So, what action would David Melding propose that we should be taking against the major house builders who are already sitting on land banks with planning permission for housing that they choose not to build on? I do not see a transformation of the acute housing need in the next decade, and therefore I do not think that we are posing the solution to the problem in the right way by simply making it a 10-year project. We have to ensure that we abolish the right to buy until such time as we don't have a problem, with those who need social housing able to be accommodated in appropriate homes.

I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Llywydd. The aim of this Bill is to abolish permanently the right to buy and the right to acquire in Wales. I'm afraid this amendment does cause the Government difficulty because it is complete abolition that provides a significant incentive for social landlords to invest in new properties, safe in the knowledge that they won’t be lost through the right to buy after a relatively short period of time. Temporary abolition, sought by amendment 6, provides no such certainty for social landlords to invest in building new houses. Indeed, evidence from the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee stakeholder sessions noted that local authorities are seeking assurance beyond that provided by temporary suspension that their future investments will be protected. 

The existing housing Measure enables local authorities to apply for the right to buy to be suspended for five years, and that can be extended to 10 years upon application and the provision of supporting evidence. Therefore, it has to be said that this amendment provides little advance on the current legislation. The temporary period would introduce confusion in the sector and not provide the long-term incentive for landlords to invest in new stock. As Siân Gwenllian said, if a future Government wishes to reintroduce the right to buy, well that would be a matter for them, but it was a manifesto commitment for this Government—and, as outlined by Siân Gwenllian, it was a manifesto commitment for Plaid Cymru too—to abolish the right to buy to safeguard the stock for use by people in the greatest housing need. Therefore, I urge Members to vote against amendment 6 and the related amendments. 

I call on David Melding to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm a little surprised by the Minister's response because, in fairness to the Cabinet Secretary, during the committee proceedings, he did concede that some form of sunset clause could be reasonably considered. He thought a far longer period than 10 years would be most appropriate, if the Government went down that road. But we now hear from the Minister that complete abolishment is the intention. I have to say that there was a different emphasis in the Government's evidence as we went through Stages 1 and 2—that the right to buy was not something that was opposed in principle and that even something like a sunset clause could get looked at. 

On your other argument about how somehow a sunset clause deters new build in terms of housing associations, or if we have a new age of council housing, one way around that would be, as I previously mentioned, ensuring that new builds have to be socially rented for a period of 15 or 20 years or whatever. There are other mechanisms, rather than completely abolishing a cherished right that has been exercised by so many people. If someone in 1980 said that getting on for 150,000 people in Wales would exercise a particular right, you would have thought, 'Wow, that is offering the citizenry something that is highly desirable.' So, I do urge the Chamber to think that some nuance could be brought into the Bill that is in front of us.

I do agree that the issue of supply is at the heart of this. Therefore, I think it's reasonable, after 10 years, to examine the issue again and to ask ourselves, 'The evidence that some people have found convincing: does that still have the strength that it has today?' And I don't think that is, in any way, weakening the Bill before us. After all, it would only take a resolution in this house or regulation. We're not talking about the Bill expiring and then you'd have to start the whole process again; it would just require an affirmative vote here.

Can I also say at this point that the Welsh Government has consistently mentioned the alternative of homeownership assistance schemes such as Help to Buy? But what I think you consistently fail to acknowledge is that most people on the lowest incomes would fail to qualify for such schemes as their income would be below the threshold, and many of these people have taken advantage of the Right to Buy and the discounts that it has given them.

During Stage 1, Steve Clarke stated:

'In our consultation of 2015, and our joint statement with TPAS Cymru, 100% of tenants agreed that Welsh Government needed to do more to increase social housing supply. In those consultations, 60% of tenants stated they did not want to see an end to RTB but supported restrictions on discounts and temporary suspension where there was a demonstrated need.'

So, I think this amendment is much more in tune with what the tenants, when they're consulted, are saying and the type of flexibility and sophistication they would expect in the policy and its architecture that we are constructing this afternoon. So, I really think that we could be innovative and do something that would be a first for this Assembly, and also acknowledge that there clearly is divided opinion.

I have to say, you know, in this Chamber there is a clear majority for this measure, probably, in its most robust form from your point of view, but when it comes to public opinion, I think you'll find that the arguments that we're making on this side—and we are supported, I acknowledge, by members of the UKIP group—have far greater resonance with the electorate out there, and I think that ought to be a concern during this period of what some people think is unresponsive or jaded democracy. So, I do hope Members will think carefully about how they're going to vote on this amendment.

If amendment 6 is not agreed to, amendment 2 falls. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 6: For: 15, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 2 fell.

David Melding, amendment 13.

I'll withdraw it; there's no point now. 

Amendment 13 (David Melding) not moved.

David Melding, amendment 14.

Likewise, I withdraw. 

Amendment 14 (David Melding) not moved.