We now move to the short debate. We're now moving to the short debate. Will Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so or resume your seats? Thank you. I now call the short debate, and I call on Julie Morgan to speak on the topic she has chosen. Julie.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. My short debate is entitled 'Secure housing—stable families. Why section 21 needs to be repealed to give greater security to families in the Welsh private rented sector.' I'd like to start by saying 'thank you' to Shelter Cymru for their work and for their help on this subject, and to declare an interest in that my daughter works for Shelter Cymru. I have agreed that Dawn Bowden, Joyce Watson, Mike Hedges and Jenny Rathbone should speak after I've concluded my remarks. So, thank you very much for your interest.

So, what is section 21? The Housing Act 1988 halted the creation of Labour's Rent Act 1977 protected tenancies. On 15 January 1989, the assured shorthold tenancy came into force. Alongside, came the procedure to accelerate recovery of possession, namely section 21 of the 1988 Act, which in lay terms is the 'no-fault eviction'. In practice, it means landlords can evict people living in privately rented homes with no reason whatsoever. 

There are 460,000 people living in Wales in the private rented sector, and I believe that they should not be in constant fear of being evicted without good reason. They need to be able to sleep easy in their homes. When we talk about people living in the private rented sector, we're not just talking about young people who want the freedom to up sticks and move at short notice. We're now talking about families who need a solid base so that they can get their children into schools and single parents who need to find local work. The private rented sector has changed enormously, and now it is widespread and many families need it. Imagine the disruption and cost of having to move at the landlord's whim. Imagine you've just painted the children's bedroom and they're enjoying their new school, imagine you've just finally found a good part-time job that fits in with school hours, and then the landlord decides to evict you, which they can do without giving a reason.

Assured shorthold contracts can be either fixed periods or periodic rolling contracts from month to month. A landlord cannot bring section 21 possession proceedings during the first six months of the tenancy or during a fixed contractual term. Where the fixed term is about to expire or the tenancy is periodic, section 21 allows a landlord to serve a two-month notice to quit. If the tenant does not vacate, so long as the notice is correct, a court must order possession. No reason for requiring possession has to be given. Whether the tenant is at fault is not investigated, and there is no weighing up of the tenant's need against the landlord's. And, lest we forget, we are speaking of people's homes, described in the case of Uratemp Ventures Limited against Collins as where a person

'lives and to which he returns and which forms the centre of his existence.'

This inequality of bargaining power has led to significant abuse and severe hardships. Landlords have been able to serve notice capriciously without restraint by the court, with tenants made homeless at short notice with all the attendant costs and distress this causes. In a recent Shelter Cymru survey, 22 per cent said that having to move had pushed them into debt—credit card, overdraft, pay-day loan, bank loan—and the average cost of moving was £1,100-plus. 

Originally, maybe this private rented sector was seen as a vehicle for young single professionals or childless couples, but, increasingly, as well as housing families with children, it's older people and people with vulnerabilities who are in the private rented sector. The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 allows local authorities to discharge their homelessness duty via an assured shorthold, but this minimum security of tenure can result in a housing merry-go-round, with children and their education or vulnerable adults needing a close support network becoming the victims. For parents employed in part-time jobs, it becomes a nightmare, and not only because of the logistics of delivering and collecting children to from school. This causes stress on relationships and contributes to family break-up. Stable housing is fundamental to improving well-being and its fundamental to relationships and self-development. It's at the heart of family life, allowing people to integrate and become part of a community, build social relationships, build a sense of identity and plan and envision their future. And, of course, there is evidence that section 21 disproportionately impacts women, who are more likely to have dependent children, rely on means-tested benefits, have rolling monthly contracts, experience poor housing conditions and fear revenge eviction if they complain.

Now, does it have to be like this? Quite simply, no. For most of the twentieth century, private sector tenants enjoyed significantly greater security of tenure. Will ending section 21 result in landlords being unable to easily regain possession of their property? Again, no. Landlords can recover possession via section 8 of the 1988 Act, whether within a fixed term or not, provided they can establish a ground, for example where anti-social behaviour or rent arrears or damage to property are alleged. And, even under the rent Acts, landlords have been able to recover possession of premises for use for themselves or their sons and daughters so long as that's a reality, not a pretence. In Scotland, where the equivalent of section 21 has been repealed, landlords who need to sell up are able to recover possession to facilitate a sale. In terms of justice and fairness, is it not infinitely preferable that the landlord must establish a ground, that the tenant has a chance to defend himself or herself against allegations, and that the court brings to bear its independent judgment?

Now, will landlords baulk at a change and invest elsewhere? That was the warning issued when plans for Rent Smart Wales were introduced, but it didn't happen. Between 2013 and 2014, until 2015-16, the sector actually grew by almost 7,000 dwellings. Greater security of tenure does not restrict a landlord's ability to earn a reasonable return. Moreover, as the Residential Landlords Association observed, landlords themselves do not want to see tenancy end as empty properties mean lost rent and increased costs for themselves. In Shelter Cymru's recent survey, 64 per cent of tenants said that, with a five-year tenancy, they would be more likely to make home improvements themselves. Greater security for tenants would promote a more professional approach.

In Wales, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 will shortly replace assured shortholds with a standard contract. Instead of section 21, we shall have section 173, but, broadly, with restrictions on landlords in default on tenancy information or security or deposit requirements, the section 21 regime above is replicated in the 2016 Act, except for a new retaliation defence under section 217. This gives the court a discretion to refuse an order where the tenant can show that the landlord served the notice to quit to avoid repairing or fitness for human habitation obligations, but this is a narrow defence to be raised when proceedings are under way, with the burden of proof on the tenant.

So, to conclude, tenants want more security. They end up having to move when they don't want to. Moving home is costly. Lack of security of tenure is undermining family life, children's education and networks of support. Absence of security of tenure means that tenants don't get a fair hearing in court. There is no evidence that a change will lead to the private rented sector drying up.

In the last 12 months, tenants' demands have become increasingly louder. Scotland have made the change and, in England, Labour has recognised that the minimum six months' security of tenure afforded by section 21 is wholly inadequate, and pledged in the last general election to raise this to three years, and I don't see the issue resting there. I do believe that this Assembly will have to address this inequality, and I very much hope that Wales will go ahead and get rid of section 21, because we do have, actually, the power to do this. If tenants are left in this state of insecurity and we have the power, surely we have the duty to move ahead and take this action. So, thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for hearing my case. I now hand over to my colleagues.

Well, you didn't tell me who you've given a minute to, so I think it would help if you did.

I did at the beginning, but—

Oh, sorry, I missed that. I was—

Dawn Bowden, Joyce Watson, Mike Hedges and Jenny Rathbone.

Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. I missed that. I do apologise. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank Julie for giving me a minute of her time in this debate on a really very important issue? Now, Assembly colleagues will be aware that, for some time, I've been raising the profile of the so-called 'sex for rent' problem that can face some of the most vulnerable people who are seeking to find a home. Indeed, the recent broadcast by the reporters on the programme Ein Byd showed the sickening reality of this particular problem, and I was left wondering how many people have faced a no-fault eviction because of this. In reality, if landlords don't have to prove a reason for the eviction, then we may never know.

We also hear of section 21 evictions being used when a tenant has done nothing more than to seek repairs to a property. Because, given the high demand for accommodation in our communities, landlords know that another willing tenant who is prepared to put up with poor conditions can easily be found. In both of the circumstances that I've outlined, section 21 can be used by an unscrupulous landlord to rid themselves of tenants who won't comply with unlawful demands or merely seek to exercise their rights.

So, in addition to all the reasons outlined by Julie in her submission, these are just two more reasons why I support this motion. Improving the stability of tenure will be another piece of a jigsaw that I'm keen for us to put together, because housing and homes must be an ever higher priority in our work.

I thank Julie for bringing this debate. Far from actually asking landlords to meet certain requirements reducing the availability of homes, it will only, actually, in my opinion, get rid of bad landlords, because good landlords will want to honour their commitment to their tenants. They will want to look after their investment, and I know an awful lot of good landlords. I equally know tenants who haven't been grateful for that and destroyed those homes, so what we're really talking about here is a balance. I also know an awful lot of bad landlords and very, very poor housing. So, I think by repealing this, by giving some balance back into the system that is clearly not there at the moment, it is the right way forward, and what we will see, I am fairly confident, is really good landlords coming forward with people having the right to a secure home and a secure tenancy that is well maintained, and that, when they ask for a job to be done, they won't be thrown out on the street to the cost of them, their family and also society, because, at the end of the day, those families to have to be housed. They have a right to be housed, and it's the local authority that is picking up that tab. 

Can I thank Julie Morgan for bringing this debate? I don't think we talk about housing in this place anywhere near enough. If we talked about it half as much as health, we might have a healthier place. 

We've had a growth of private rented accommodation and a shortage of accommodation. The pressure is on private renters. Are we really telling people, 'Don't complain, don't object', no matter what the landlord does or how poor the accommodation is, or how many repairs remain to be done, because the landlord can use section 21 to evict you and your children? And, whilst you can try and defend it in court, the likelihood of winning is probably fairly low. 

Section 21 gives bad landlords a charter for continuing to poorly maintain their properties, because I've had several cases of tenants being evicted simply because they've asked for the leaking roof to be repaired, or the faulty lock to be repaired, and this is no way of treating people who otherwise behave completely appropriately. But it also—if they think they might be moved on at the landlord's whim, it doesn't give any incentive for the tenant to bed into the property and the community and actually put the paint on the children's bedroom or whatever. So, I think that section 21 should be removed for the reasons that Julie has suggested. 

Thank you very much. Can I now call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to reply to the debate? Rebecca Evans.

Thank you very much, and I'm very grateful to Julie Morgan for choosing 'no fault' section 21 notices as a subject for this debate today, and I'm also grateful to Julie for the very helpful meeting that she organised last week to give me and my officials the chance to explore the issues in more depth with Julie, with Dawn Bowden and with Shelter. I've been really pleased to have some further discussions on this particular issue with Crisis earlier on today. 

Whilst I'm committed to working with landlords to build a vibrant private rented sector, this cannot be at the expense of tenants. How some landlords use section 21 notices is quite rightly of concern to many people, as we've heard during this debate, and it is to me. As we've heard, having to find a new home, covering the cost of moving, finding the deposit for a new tenancy before the current one is repaid, and suffering the potential stress and emotional upset of a move are all very real concerns. And that's before you take into account issues such as finding a new school for the children, moving away from families and social support networks. 

Section 21 notices mean that a family can face massive upheaval in a very short time, and all without the landlord needing to justify the issue of the notice in the first place. So, I do think that the time is right for a wider discussion on the use of 'no fault' notices. There are many aspects to be considered, and today's debate has certainly served to highlight some of them. I believe that, with imagination and partnership, we can have a private rented sector that works for both landlords and tenants. 

I think it's helpful if we look back as to how we got to where we are today. The ability of a landlord to issue a minimum two-month 'no fault' notice to end a tenancy was introduced under the Housing Act 1988. The 1988 Act saw the start of a prolonged growth in the private rented sector, which was further boosted by the availability of buy-to-let mortgages.

As well as growth in the private rented sector since the 1988 Act, the overall quality of properties has improved. Some have attributed this to removal of rent controls and the introduction of section 21, which gave landlords greater certainty over regaining possession. The growth in the private rented sector followed decades of decline. While the previous system of rent Act tenancies provided far greater security of tenure, the lack of landlord investment due to associated rent controls resulted in very poor housing. We have to make sure that in making changes to no-fault notice arrangements we avoid any unintended consequences. That's why I've asked my officials to open up discussions with the private rented sector on this issue and I'm pleased to say that following the meeting that we've had with Julie those discussions have already started. 

So, yes, there are still bad landlords and not all tenants are perfect either, but we are taking positive steps. Rent Smart Wales, introduced under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, requires that a landlord pass a fit-and-proper-person test prior to becoming licensed and to undertake mandatory training. This training has been very well received with 96 per cent of people trained saying that the felt the training would make them a better landlord. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 will make further improvements. It will help avoid disputes by ensuring clarity on rights and responsibilities, and it will also introduce significant new protections for tenants. For example, landlords will have to ensure that homes are fit for human habitation. Certain common law rights that are not currently immediately apparent to all tenants have been made statutory and will be included in all occupation contracts. This includes the right to occupy the dwelling without interference from the landlord. 

While the renting homes Act provides for a no-fault notice that is similar to section 21, there are important differences. For example, under the renting homes Act, a no-fault notice is valid only for four months. This will stop the current practice whereby some landlords issue a section 21 notice at the start of the tenancy, so that after two months they're able to make a possession claim at any point in the future. The renting homes Act also provides protection against retaliatory eviction where a landlord responds to a request for a repair by issuing a no-fault possession notice. Under the 2016 Act, the court may refuse the possession claim if it is satisfied that the landlord was seeking to avoid the repair. Therefore, the implementation of the renting homes Act will provide additional protections. However, I do recognise that it still allows a landlord to obtain possession on giving two months' notice. So, the concerns that we have heard during this debate today will still be very relevant. In looking to address them, we need to consider the potential for those unintended consequences that I mentioned earlier arising. 

For example, where section 21 notices can often lead to homelessness, it is important to note that roughly half of all homeless households are currently being rehoused in the private sector. Careful consideration would therefore need to be given to the potential impact of abolishing no-fault notices on the willingness of landlords to accommodate homeless households and the subsequent potential negative impact on the availability of accommodation. This is why those discussions with the landlords are so important. Also, according to the Residential Landlords Association, 52 per cent of section 21 notices are issued due to rent arrears and 12 per cent due to anti-social behaviour. If abolishing section 21 led to more claims being submitted specifically based on rent arrears or antisocial behaviour grounds, this could cause other problems such as greater difficulty finding a new home or not getting credit due to a county court judgment. Again, these are issues that I'd be keen to pursue further with Shelter and Crisis and others. 

Beyond the potential impact on our ability to address homelessness, we will still need to be alert to the other wider potential impacts on the private rented sector, including on any willingness to invest and potential cross-border issues. These are all matters that I'm currently examining and why the discussions with the sector across the piece are so important. I'm also watching the developments in Scotland, where they've recently abolished no-fault notices, very closely. At our meeting last week, Julie, Dawn, Shelter and I agree to do some further work together to explore the issues and to widen the evidence base in order to establish what will be the best way forward. In the meantime, we can do and are doing much to mitigate the effects of section 21. The Early Doors service being piloted in Bridgend is a good example. The service enables landlords to contact a support provider if tenants fall into arrears and provides intensive support to tenants to help prevent eviction. 

So, today's debate helpfully further raises the profile of the issues relating to no-fault evictions and it's a very useful contribution to provoke what I hope is a wider discussion on what can be achieved through mitigation and potentially through legislative change to ensure that our private rented sector is vibrant, of high quality, and fair to everyone involved. 

Thank you very much. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.

The meeting ended at 19:05.