The next group of amendments relates to revoking licences. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 56. I call on Leanne Wood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in this group.

Amendment 56 (Leanne Wood) moved.

Diolch. These amendments are tabled to give the court the power to revoke a licence for somebody who has been charging unauthorised payments. It would be a discretionary power, not mandatory, but there for the courts to decide. Now, at Stage 2, the previous Minister rejected these amendments on the grounds that it would undermine the role of Rent Smart Wales to decide what action to take. But, the point is that we are asking the courts to enforce this law and, as part of that, giving them a discretionary power to revoke a licence will help with the enforcement of the law.

Rent Smart Wales is in its infancy and still likely to be subjected to legal challenges from landlords in a way that the courts will not. It's likely that a landlord who has had a licence revoked by Rent Smart Wales could challenge this and use a lack of clarity on when licences should be revoked. It is, after all, a question as to whether or not someone is a fit and proper person that determines this, and a conviction in the courts for charging unauthorised fees can, of course, contribute to that. But, it would take time for those powers to be established, and therefore less likely to be challenged.  

Again, I have a lot of sympathy with Leanne's position here, but I will not be supporting this amendment. As I said at Stage 2, in Wales, we're in a unique position to have Rent Smart Wales in place, and the Welsh Government pushed and promoted this body to be transformative in the private rented sector. One of my later amendments—amendment 45 in group 11, which Plaid Cymru supported at stage 2—provides that Rent Smart Wales will be notified when a fixed-penalty notice has been issued. Another one of my amendments at Stage 2 promoted the idea that Rent Smart Wales should be able to issue fixed-penalty notices—something that the Government has now adopted. Rent Smart Wales will be notified of any rogue landlord activity, and I think that, as the lead authority in the private rented sector, it will be best placed to determine whether a licence is in need of revoking. Otherwise, what point is it being there? If my amendments pass, I think that Rent Smart Wales will be gaining a significant amount of responsibility, and this area of legislation will improve, removing the need for the amendments proposed in this group.

I call on the Minister.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do object to amendments 56 and 58, which are the same as those brought forward on this matter at Stage 2. Our position is also the same—that the amendments inappropriately restrict the operation of the licensing authority. Removal of a licence under Part 1 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 may not necessarily be the best solution, but that is a matter for the licensing authority to decide. I would like to remind Members that section 20 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 provides that, in deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to be licensed, the licensing authority—currently Rent Smart Wales—must have regard to all matters it considers appropriate. And, amongst the matters to which the licensing authority must have regard is any contravention of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant matters.

Licensing arrangements require agents and landlords to show their fitness to operate. Conviction for an offence under sections 2 or 3 of the Bill would be a matter that the licensing authority must have regard to when deciding whether or not a licence is granted or revoked under section 25 of the 2014 Act. Fit-and-proper-person requirements under section 20 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 mean that, in deciding whether a person is a fit-and-proper person to be licensed, the licensing authority must have regard to all matters it considers appropriate, which will include whether or not there is a contravention of any provision of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant law. A conviction for an offence would be a contravention, and the licensing authority must have regard to such contraventions in deciding whether someone is a fit-and-proper person to be licensed under Part 1 of the 2014 Act. This could mean revocation of a licence if the licensing authority is no longer satisfied that the licence holder is a fit-and-proper person to hold a licence.

As set out at Stage 2, there are also potential, serious unintended consequences if this amendment were to be passed. The amendments could create a perverse situation whereby a licence under Part 1 of the 2014 Act could be revoked by a criminal court. The same landlord or agent could continue to hold a licence to manage a house in multiple occupation whilst having a licence under Part 1 of the 2014 Act revoked by the criminal court. The amendment does not address these issues, which could mean we could see such anomalies.

Another unintended consequence of the amendment would arise if an agent or landlord decides to appeal against the decision of a licensing authority to revoke a licence under Part 1 of the 2014 Act. In these circumstances, the appeal would have to be heard in a residential property tribunal. Under amendments 56 and 58, if a criminal court could order the licensing authority to revoke the offender’s licence under section 25(1)(b) of the 2014 Act, these amendments would not work in tandem with the existing legislation. Rent Smart Wales would have to defend the revocation of a licence that they were ordered to revoke by a court, despite having played no part in the decision to revoke. Again, I do not see that these issues have been addressed in the amendment, which is unchanged from Stage 2.

For the avoidance of doubt, our expectation is that the licensing authority should have regard for these matters in their considerations. I've tabled an amendment to debated later, No. 25, which allows for guidance to the licensing authority on this matter.

These amendments are therefore, in our view, unnecessary and fundamentally flawed, and I would urge Members to reject both amendments.

Thank you. Leanne Wood. No?

So, the question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 11, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 56: For: 11, Against: 37, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Minister, amendment 7.

Amendment 7 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 7 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Minister, amendment 8.

Amendment 8 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 8 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.