Amending Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988

2. Questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government – in the Senedd on 27 March 2019.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jenny Rathbone Jenny Rathbone Labour

(Translated)

4. What plans does the Welsh Government have to amend Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 to give people who privately rent homes more secure tenancies? OAQ53675

Photo of Julie James Julie James Labour 2:45, 27 March 2019

We're very much in favour of looking to see whether we can make security of tenure much more of a reality here in Wales, and we will be working hard with the sector to see whether we can repeal or modify section 21, as it's called, of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 in order to give people better security of tenure.

Photo of Jenny Rathbone Jenny Rathbone Labour 2:46, 27 March 2019

Thank you. Minister, obviously this affects nearly 0.5 million people. Obviously, quite a lot of them are young, single people who don't seem to have a problem moving around at short notice, but the people who are really affected by this lack of any secure tenancy are people with families, which means that if they have a child in school—being evicted for no reason whatsoever; they could be model tenants—means that the child has to move school, in all likelihood. And equally, vulnerable people who require support from within the community to avoid social isolation are in a similar position.

So, if and when we are in a position to actually make the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 go live, how is the section 173 replacing section 21 actually going to make any real difference to that security that people should be able to feel in privately rented homes? Because whilst it's possible for them to simply argue in the courts that they're being evicted because the landlord doesn't want to repair or otherwise make safe the dwelling that they're renting, that is not sufficient in itself. It opens it to racism and all sorts of other prejudice that could result from this very weak landlord-tenant relationship.

Photo of Julie James Julie James Labour 2:47, 27 March 2019

Yes. I don't disagree at all with the proposition that Jenny Rathbone puts forward, and I absolutely agree good-quality housing is a springboard from which children and families could create secure and successful futures. It's a human right to have a secure home that you can rely on and that you can build a future on, and I couldn't agree more. All of the evidence suggests that children who live in insecure rented accommodation are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems than those in the owner-occupied sector, for example, and children who move frequently, as she said, are obviously much more likely to suffer from those kinds of problems.

We are looking to implement the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 to improve the clarity and consistency of housing law. As she said, there is a section in there that specifically prohibits the use of a no-fault eviction, where it's a retaliation eviction for something a tenant has tried to enforce. But I agree with her that that's not sufficient, and the Government would very much like to legislate to strengthen that. There are a number of problems with that, not least that that Act is not yet in force. It's not in force for two reasons: one is that there's one more set of regulations that we need to consult on to make sure that the Act can be implemented; and the second rather more prosaic reason is that the Ministry of Justice is updating its computer system, and we are in discussion with them about the timing of that because, without that, we can't implemented it as it is. The complexity for getting the contracts, the tenancy arrangements and all the rest of it are too much without the computer system. So, we're in discussion about whether we should pay to have the system upgraded in advance of the update or whether the update will take place in good time for us to be able to implement the Act. And that's an ongoing discussion that I'm happy to keep Members updated on.

We do need the other regulations to be put in place. We don't want a situation where we would basically be implementing an Act and then immediately amending it so that everybody has to cope with two sets of changes. So, I'd like to be able to put the change to what's now section 21, which would be section 178—173, sorry; the Member's got a better memory for it than I have—in place, so that when it's commenced, it commences with the new provisions in place. So, there are a number of practical and prosaic issues there, but, on the principle, I have no problem at all, and officials are working very hard to see what needs to be done to put that into place.

Photo of Mohammad Asghar Mohammad Asghar Conservative

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. Minister, the leader of Caerphilly council said recently—

Photo of Elin Jones Elin Jones Plaid Cymru

My mistake, sorry; that's my mistake. David Melding was meant to be called on that question. You were too keen, Mohammad, and I was wrong. David Melding.

Photo of David Melding David Melding Conservative

I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer. In England, they're looking at this as well, and you know that there's a proposal to increase the minimum tenancy period from six months to three years. However, the 1988 reform was designed to bring more properties onto the market, because at that stage there was, one could argue, quite severe over-regulation and the supply of properties to rent was very much affected. So, we need to look at this carefully, but I think the default position shouldn't be at something like six months. I think that's where we've got a problem, and it should be set higher. We need to consult widely with the sector. And, for some people, having a short tenancy is what they want, but that's a bit crowded now and we need more variety in the market, but there will have to be assurances on both sides when we look at longer tenancies, because they bring some risk, obviously, for very reputable landlords, as well.

Photo of Julie James Julie James Labour 2:51, 27 March 2019

Yes. I think the Member is absolutely right. I mean, there are a number of complexities here around why the sector is as it is, but there's no doubt at all that sudden eviction for no apparent reason is a real scourge. We know that it happens and we know that many landlords would never dream of doing such a thing, but we do know that it happens, so we need to get the regulation to be proportionate—he's right. We need to get the length of tenancies right. I think Jenny Rathbone particularly mentioned the difference between young, single people who have mobile careers and families and so on. So, we need to get to a situation where we've implemented our own Act that addresses some of those issues, and that we implement it in the light of changes that reflect changing policy and real circumstances across the UK, and that we do so in a way that both doesn't put off landlords from offering their property for rent, but also does allow the security of tenure that allows people to have the stable and secure accommodation that they want. 

In particular, we're looking to have landlords co-operate with us and come on board with schemes that would allow the private rented sector to participate in, effectively, a social rent so that they have a guaranteed rental income from one of the registered social landlords or a local housing authority by which they give over their property for a lengthier period of time for an arrangement that guarantees the level of rent, and so on. So, we are looking at a range of resources here, but I do think that most people would agree that being able to be evicted for no reason at all just at the drop of a hat is something that we need to address.