The next item is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government on improving security of tenure. And I call on the Minister to make her statement—Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. This statement provides an update on the Government’s proposals for extending the minimum notice period for no-fault evictions under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. The consultation closed earlier this month and the responses are currently being considered, and I will, of course, update Members further in due course. Ahead of that, I want to make clear what is being proposed. Our approach is to amend the 2016 Act in order to deliver on the commitment to improve security of tenure in the private rented sector, and for the amended Act to then be implemented before the end of the current Assembly term.

The consultation proposed tripling, from two months to six months, the notice that a landlord must give when seeking to end a standard occupation contract under section 173 of the Act. This would apply in those cases where a landlord does not have to provide a reason for ending the contract. The consultation also proposed restricting the issue of a section 173 notice until six months after the occupation date of the contract. The Act currently sets this at four months. Taken together, the effect of these two key features would be that contract holders would enjoy 12, instead of six, months' initial security of tenure, subject to compliance with the terms of their contract. I appreciate that some Members may feel this falls short of a ban on so called no-fault evictions, but I want to stress that the dual impact of implementing the renting homes Act and seeking to extend the notice period for section 173 possessions will deliver substantial benefits to contract holders. Improving the security of tenure is our aim, and I firmly believe that is what these proposals deliver and that contract holders in Wales will not be short-changed compared to their counterparts in other parts of the UK.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

In Scotland currently, and under the proposals being consulted on for England, there are grounds where tenants who are not at fault can still be evicted with only two months’ notice, such as when the landlord wishes to sell the property or move into it themselves. Under our proposals, in all circumstances, other than when the landlord is seeking possession for a specified breach of the contract, the tenant or contract holder will be entitled to a minimum notice period of six months.

Ultimately, I consider the length of time that someone has to find a new home is more critical than whether or not the landlord has a reason to seek possession. Therefore, under our proposals, even where a landlord intends to sell the property or live in it themselves, contract holders will have much more time to make the necessary arrangements for themselves or their dependants, such as their child’s school or for those they care for, and to find a property more suited to their needs. It would also give those who are able to do so more time to save, and those who are less able more time to engage the necessary support and assistance.

I have also considered how best to maximize improvements to the private rented sector at the earliest opportunity. It is my view that, to do this, we need to ensure the many benefits of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act are implemented without further delay. I'm sure I need not remind Members that, since the legislation was passed, we have been held back on implementing it due to the need for court systems to be changed. Having now reached a solution, I am keen to press ahead with full implementation by the end of the current Assembly term. I will shortly be writing to every Member, reminding them of the positive changes for every tenant in Wales as a result of this Act, but I want to set out some of the main ones now.

The Act will improve security by replacing the current complex areas of housing law with a fairer and simpler legal framework. It will also require landlords to issue a written statement of their occupation contract, which clearly sets out the rights and responsibilities of landlords and those renting from them. The Act will also provide other benefits, such as setting out the landlord’s obligation to ensure the dwelling is fit for human habitation. Here, regulations can be used to prescribe specific matters and circumstances to which regard must be had, for example including requirements for electrical safety testing, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors. These are provisions that will make it easier for a contract holder’s dependants or relatives to succeed to a—there are provisions; excuse me, Deputy Presiding Officer, I've got my tongue in a twist. There are provisions also that will make it easier for a contract holder’s dependants or relatives to succeed to a contract. Those in supported accommodation will also, for the first time, have a clearly defined set of terms underpinning their occupation, helping them to understand and enforce their rights. To help ensure abandoned properties are re-let as quickly as possible, the Act also specifies a new procedure for the possession of abandoned dwellings.

There are, therefore, two strands to our plans to improve security before the end of the Assembly term: to implement the renting homes Act and to provide further protections for contract holders when subject to a section 173 notice, which is the matter upon which we have just consulted.

Returning to that consultation, I am pleased to say that over 850 people or organisations responded. Responses were weighted heavily on the side of the landlords and agents, which is understandable, given the direct link we have to them through Rent Smart Wales. But whilst we did receive some responses directly from individual tenants, we are aware that organisations such as Shelter Cymru ran their own consultations to formulate their response as well. I'm not surprised by this level of interest because how a landlord can seek possession, and the impact any resulting eviction can have on tenants, has always been an issue that generates strong feelings. I'm therefore pleased by the level of response, and officials have been meeting with key stakeholders to gather further views that can be considered alongside the analysis of consultation responses.

Ahead of that consideration of the responses, there are two important things to remember. Firstly, whilst it is not my intention to remove section 173 entirely, the changes being proposed, if implemented, would remove the incentives for landlords to use it in the same way that they use section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 now. I expect this to significantly limit the circumstances in which it can be used. This is because the changes would mean that, if tenants pay their rent on time, look after the property and are not breaching any terms of their tenancy agreement, then they will have significantly increased security of tenure—twice as much, in fact, as there would be 12 months’ security at the outset rather than six. They will also no longer have the constant worry of potentially needing to move with only two months’ notice.

The second important thing to remember is that landlords will retain their ability to seek possession where there is a breach of the contract, including in the case of rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act already contains the necessary provisions, and the consultation did not propose extending notice periods in these circumstances.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we've already done a lot to ensure the private rented sector is well regulated and able to offer high-quality homes to those who choose to rent. But there is more that can, and should, be done. That is why we are committed to providing greater security for tenants, and I believe that my proposals do just that. Should they be enacted, their impact will be kept under review so that we can identify the impacts of the policy on the rental market, whether it has improved security for contract holders and whether further change is needed. Diolch.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement on this important area of public policy? I'd just like to ask, as the Minister said responses are now being considered, quite how firm is your policy, because I think what you've just outlined seemed to be a very clear path that you want to take. So, I would like to know how contingent it is, and how those consultations may now alter your views, if at all. I think we all agree that the system needs to be fair to both tenants and landlords. It is an area that requires reform and the UK Government is itself consulting on housing policy in this area for England, and that consultation, as you may know, closes on 12 October. I do think it may be wise to pay some regard to that consultation exercise, and indeed for them to do likewise to ours, as what is proposed in England differs a fair bit, but is, in other ways, related also in terms of the policy objective.

The Minister is not in favour of the proposal in England to allow eviction at two months' notice to permit sale or residential use by the landlord, and the Minister I think cogently argued that a reasonable period was required for a tenant to find a new home, and that, to her, is uppermost, and I don't disagree with that. However, as the Minister rather tangentially acknowledged, otherwise in England no-fault evictions will end, and that's a big difference between what you're proposing and what will happen in England. Instead, in England, during the contract period, landlords would have to rely on provisions permitting eviction where contracts have been broken, and it is the UK Government's suggestion that the court system be speeded up to ensure such redress is effective, and I think that does indicate a balance between the interests of tenants and those of landlords.

So, my question is: why does the Welsh Government not favour the approach that seems to be taken in England, which is to end no-fault evictions? And what regard will she give to the consultations in England and perhaps review her primary decision not to follow up a similar path and just say, 'This type of eviction will no longer be permitted in law'?

Well, I'm delighted to hear David Melding saying that he broadly is in line with the direction of travel. Obviously, we will be looking carefully to see what the responses say. I have had a brief overview of the responses, and they are largely what we expected, because we're in pretty constant touch with the sector anyway. But, of course, we will be looking at the policy in the light of those responses. I just wanted to remind Members what the consultation was based on.

In terms of taking into account the English consultation, we will, of course, be looking at that, but, however, our renting homes Act substantially changes the landscape in Wales, very substantially away from the Housing Act as it is in England. And what they've done in England is they've taken an approach that outlines a whole series of routes to possession, but it doesn't actually end no-fault evictions. There are circumstances in England in which no-fault evictions will still be allowed. Yes, and they are where a landlord seeks possession for their own use or for the use of their family, which is to sell. So, those routes remain open here. What they haven't done in England is that they haven't got the provisions that our renting homes Act has in place to prevent thing like retaliatory evictions and so on. So, I'm very confident that the combination of our renting homes Act and our extension of the time period actually gives us increased protection here in Wales.

And the language of the sector is around abolishing no-fault evictions, but, actually, when you speak to the sector—Shelter and Crisis and so on—they acknowledge that it's not possible to always do that, because, of course, the landlord who would otherwise find themselves homeless would have the right under human rights legislation, amongst others, to possession of their own house if they were themselves to be homeless. And I think it would not be very—well, it would not be possible to have legislation that prevented you from ever getting that property back. Rather, we talk about it in terms of increased security of tenure for renting in the private sector. There are, of course, a whole series of other things that we can do for homes that are socially rented, which I will come on to in a further statement, in due course, in the Assembly.

I'd like to say I'm surprised by this watered-down policy, but I'm not. It follows a well-trodden path in which a Labour Government hints at the delivery of a progressive policy, only to lose the courage of its convictions and instead roll out something that's unsatisfactory and diluted. I may not be surprised, but that's not to say that I'm not disappointed—disappointed for the many thousands of people in Wales that are living under the threat of a no-fault eviction. These are the very people that would have benefited from this Labour Government remaining steadfast in the face of strong lobbying and delivering what was needed. On that point, is it really fair and equitable that there are two professional lobbying bodies for landlords, and just one person working unpaid to represent Generation Rent? How does the Welsh Government intend to address this and create a level playing field?

What impact could a no-fault evictions policy have in this country? We know from figures provided by Shelter Cymru that at least 42 per cent of private tenants in Wales do not have a fixed-term tenancy agreement. This means that they risk eviction if they get on the wrong side of their landlord, often for something as innocuous as asking for a repair to be carried out. We also know that the status quo is more difficult for women, because, according to research from Shelter Cymru, women are more likely to be asked for sex for rent.

I spent some time with homeless people earlier this year when I joined some Plaid Cymru members who volunteer to go out on the streets of Swansea every week to give out warm food and clothing. One woman, who had been living on the streets for some time, spoke about the hardship of sleeping rough and how, in Swansea, the police and the council seem to crack down on rough-sleeping whenever they were due to hold a major event. People are regularly arrested under the Vagrancy Act 1824. That young woman asked me a simple, but profound question: how can it be legal to make someone homeless, but illegal for someone to be homeless? That is a perverse situation, and your proposals will not solve this problem.

Ending no-fault eviction is an important tool in tackling the shocking levels of homelessness we are now seeing, and I believe that this is a golden opportunity to deliver something positive and effective, and it's an opportunity that has now been missed. Will the Minister agree to monitor the situation, and, if it's found that the Government's measures do not impact sufficiently on the no-fault evictions rate, will you agree to revisit this with a view to ending no-fault evictions once and for all?

Well, I'm sorry that Leanne Wood has chosen to politicise it in quite the way that she has, because I think there's a fair amount of consensus across the Chamber about what we're trying to do here in Wales. She listed a number of issues, having made the political points that she chose to make, none of which are actually affected by the circumstances we're talking about here.

She talked about the scourge of homelessness, with which I entirely agree, but she hadn't spotted in my statement, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I point out that our renting homes Act makes it much easier for people in domestic abuse situations where they are not the listed tenant to stay on in their tenancy, for example. So, there are a number of things that the renting homes Act does that alleviate some of the circumstances that she talked about, none of which are related to no-fault evictions.

In fact, it's not possible to completely eliminate no-fault evictions unless you say that a landlord that's rented their house, even if they need it themselves because they're homeless, cannot get possession of it, and those are not circumstances in which any jurisdiction in the UK, who are actually subject to the Human Rights Act 1998, would be able to do.

So, what we're talking about is increased security of tenure for people. Once we've implemented these provisions, subject to the consultation—I know already from the general consultation responses that people are not objecting to the length of time that we're putting in place—you will basically have much more security of tenure here in Wales than you will have anywhere else in the UK.

So, I will be writing to all Assembly Members, Deputy Presiding Officer, just reminding ourselves quite what a radical Act we passed back in 2016. I think some time has passed since we implemented it, and so we've forgotten quite how radical we were. But the landscape for tenants in Wales will change completely when the Act is implemented, and I'm delighted that we can now implement it before the end of this Assembly term.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm keen to understand why you decided to retain section 173 in its revised form when landlords still have section 21 to call on when they need to get rid of tenants who are destroying their property. That's No. 1, and then, secondly, because like others, I want an end to no-fault evictions, because, otherwise, private tenancies are simply not a viable alternative for families with children who can then have their children forcibly removed from the school where they're flourishing, and that obviously has a huge impact on their education. Secondly, I just wondered if you could elaborate on the solution that's now been reached with the courts to enable us to implement the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, because this, I agree, has been a bugbear for some time when we've been discussing further Acts, because the Act has not been in place. So, I'd be very keen to find that out.

So, on that last one, there were severe difficulties with the court's IT system, which we've been discussing with them. The proposal across England and Wales is that the whole of the IT system will be renewed. It was due to be renewed 'within two years' about three years ago, and we were waiting on that renewal. But we've decided not to wait and to actually implement the IT changes at our own expense ourselves in advance of the whole court system being changed, as I think it seems pretty clear that it's going to take a lot longer than was originally planned, for a variety of reasons that I won't rehearse.

In terms of the section 21 and section 173 issue, it's important to remember that, once we have implemented the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, the Housing Act will no longer be in force in Wales, so section 21 will no longer be in force in Wales. So, it replaces in its entirety the Housing Act. So, we'll only have section 173, and that will limit the grounds of no-fault eviction to pretty narrow grounds. We have provisions in the Renting Homes (Wales) Act to prevent retaliatory evictions, so, if you've asked for a property to be improved and then the landlord suddenly discovers they want to sell the house, the court will be able to take that into account. Rent Smart Wales will also be able to take it into account in considering whether a landlord is a fit-and-proper person, and we intend to monitor that.

Forgive me, Deputy Presiding Officer—I didn't answer Leanne Wood's last question, which I intended to do, which is of course we will be monitoring it. We very much want this to work, and so I said in my statement that we will be carefully monitoring the changes, and, if they are not effective in the way we think they will be, then of course we will be looking to see what else we can do to strengthen it. So, I just want to make that point as well.

Bear in mind we've also passed the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, so you can no longer charge a whole series of arbitrary fees for, first of all, getting into your home, and then for doing a whole series of other things that we've rehearsed. We also have—. The new renting homes Bill, when it's implemented, will change the—a shorthold assured tenancy, for example, will change to a minimum period of 12 months.

At this point, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I just correct the record? I said in response to a question from Michelle Brown on 17 July 2019 that the proposal, if implemented, would give a two-year security of tenure—I misspoke; it's actually a one-year security of tenure, so I just wanted to correct that—and a minimum notice period of six months; you cannot implement this within the first six months of any tenancy. So, I just wanted to correct the record there, because it has been drawn to my attention that I inadvertently said two years instead of one. But this will mean that people have the longest notice period of any jurisdiction in the UK, and, as I repeatedly say, you cannot eliminate them completely, because the vast majority of landlords in Wales only own one other property, and frequently it's when two people have got together and made a couple and they rent out the other home, and, if they split back up again, you cannot expect the person who has the house to be homeless because they've rented it out.

What we don't want is for renting properties to become prohibitive for landlords and so we just dry the market up. So, you have a human right to possess your own home if you need it for yourself. So, we would not be able to do that. So, the sector will tell you that it's a handy moniker, 'end no-fault evictions', but it's not possible to do that in its entirety, and what we're seeking to do here is to do as much as you absolutely can to provide the security of tenure that people need. So, you will not get retaliatory evictions, you'll be able to ask for repairs, you'll be able to get them done, you will not be subject to a two-month notice period if the landlord decides to sell, you will have at least six months—and, if you're a new tenant, longer than that, because you can't do it in the first six months—to find a new home, because I totally accept the point you made about children's schooling and care arrangements and all the rest of it. So, what we're trying to do is give people security, but also enough time to plan if they do find themselves in those circumstances.

Then conversely, Deputy Presiding Officer, I just want to make this point as well, just from the landlord's point of view, of course if the tenant breaches their contract then all of the usual possession routes are still open to them. So, if you have a tenant that's actually behaving very poorly, then all the usual possession routes are open.

As we all know, there's been a substantial increase in the number of people in private rented accommodation as the number of council houses has decreased, and many of those houses that would have been available for first-time buyers have been bought up by private landlords and now privately rented. So, this is a lose-lose situation. Whilst I welcome the tripling of the two months' to six months’ notice a landlord needs to give, and that a six months' tenancy must be completed—that’s certainly moving in the right direction—the effect on children’s education and family life of having to move after a year is serious.

I still support the ending of no-fault evictions. I’m disappointed with the decision not to end it. I’ve heard what the Minister has said. I still don’t understand why you couldn’t say, 'There would be no-fault evictions, but you have to do—it's six months, and then six months if you wish to move back into it yourself', rather than having it as it is now that they can give six months’ notice after six months for any reason that they care to have.

On a positive point, I'm very pleased to see action being taken over empty, abandoned houses. None of us have been out campaigning in the streets without wandering past houses with notices in 'If you don’t come back in 14 days' because they’ve obviously been abandoned. If you could explain exactly how you’re going to bring abandoned houses back into use more quickly, because not only do abandoned houses affect the landlord, they affect all those people living in the area who get serious problems from having an abandoned house next to them, and there are occasions when abandoned houses are taken over by gangs of youths and others who break in because the abandoned house has not been properly protected.

On the six months and six months, how is the Welsh Government going to ensure that landlords actually do that, that they actually follow the rules, and what will happen to landlords who don’t follow the rules?

I'll start in reverse order again. We will ensure it because of course we have Rent Smart Wales. So, in Wales, you also have to be a registered landlord. So, we have a much more regulated sector than we have elsewhere in the United Kingdom. So, it's, first of all, important to remember that. If you breach these rules—. So, the rented homes Act says that you have to give a written contract to your tenant. So, if don’t do that, and the tenant complains that you haven’t done that, you will have breached the Rent Smart Wales rules. So, you’ll not be a fit-and-proper landlord. So, there are lots of double-backs on this.

You will not be able to do retaliatory evictions. So, if your tenant is asking you to mend the gas, for example, and you decide that you need to sell the house instead, you’ll not be allowed to do that, because that will be considered to be retaliatory, for a period of time—obviously not for ever and ever, but for a period of time that couldn’t be considered to be retaliatory. So, there will be a number of protections that the Act itself does, not just this change, and I think that’s why Assembly Members are struggling with it a little bit—and I had to be reminded as well; I think we’ve all forgotten quite how radical our 2016 Act actually is and the changes that it makes.

In terms of abandoned properties, there are two types of abandoned properties. There are lots of owner-occupied or owner-unoccupied abandoned properties that my colleague Lee Waters has been actively seeking to put grants arrangements in place for, with my collaboration, in order to give people up to £20,000 to bring those back into beneficial use, with the proviso that you have to live in it yourself for five years following the grant. But there is the other problem where you’ve rented out your house and the tenant has abandoned it, but you have to go through quite a long process to prove that, and what the Act does is it truncates that process very severely. So, if you can prove the property is abandoned, you can get an almost immediate possession order for it, and that way we’ll get the house back into tenants’ use.

And the third thing we're doing, which this gives me the opportunity to highlight, is that we’re offering to private landlords in the private rented sector that, if they give their home over to us and allow us to rent it for social rent, then we will guarantee them the local housing rate for that house for the five-year period that we’re proposing to do that. In that way we’re hoping to get more landlords to come on board as being prepared to rent their house and give tenants in the sector all of the additional protections that a tenancy in the social rented sector also gives.

I must declare an interest at this point, as I am a landlord of a couple of rented properties in the private rented sector. Tenants have always had a secured tenancy agreement with myself, and rent charged has always been charged under what the property is valued at. If they have an issue, they ring the agent in charge, and the work is done immediately. So, I too believe that we should ensure security of tenure, but that it should go both ways—security for the tenant and security for the landlord. The one will not survive without the other. These proposals will further erode the rights of private landlords. I have already had a number of concerned owners of rental properties telling me that they are selling up and moving out of the private rental market. So, at a time when we are crying out for homes, the last thing we should be doing is deterring those who rent out their properties.

I have lost thousands of pounds due to bad tenants, and you would be hard pressed to find a landlord who has not, at some time or other, been in the same boat. But many, like me, believe recent changes make it untenable to continue renting out their properties and have decided to sell up. These proposals add insult to injury. Landlords who find it financially untenable to continue renting out their properties will be forced to wait even longer before they can ask their tenants to leave. This could place many landlords in greater debt. I believe this will put off future landlords, people considering renting out a second property until such time as they decide to sell. This is an important part of the private rented sector and we should be encouraging more people to do this if we are to address our housing crisis—and we do have a housing crisis.

So, Minister, you state that you will be making it easier for a contract holder's dependents or relatives to succeed a contract. Can you please expand upon that? Do you not believe that it should be up to the landlord whether or not to offer that contract? Many of the landlords who have contacted me are concerned that the Welsh Government would like to do away with private landlords. I would ask you if you could please answer those claims. Finally, Minister, if we are to tackle our housing crisis, we do need more private landlords, not fewer. How will your Government protect the rights of property owners who seek to rent out their properties in the short term? Thank you.

Well, I think we have a fundamental political disagreement about the role of the private rented sector just to start off. I think the solution to the housing crisis—for a crisis it is—is to build a lot more homes for social rent. That is a much better way of doing it, it's a much more secure route of doing it, and it provides people with the housing option that they actually want. So, we have a pretty fundamental disagreement. 

But, turning to the very specific things, I also think that—and it's usually women who are in this position—if you've been a 'tenant' in a house where you're not the named person on the tenancy and you find that your partner decides to end that tenancy, rendering you homeless, you should have rights, depending on how long you've stayed in that house and so on, and what you can show around it being your home. That's even more important where there's a domestic violence situation. So, you would not want a situation to continue where a woman in private rented accommodation whose name is not on the tenancy agreement cannot complain about domestic violence because in doing so she renders herself homeless. So, I think we at least across the Chamber will have an agreement that that should not be allowed. 

Similarly, where a carer has spent 20-odd years in a property and is not on the tenancy, or a child of that tenant has done that, they should not necessarily be evicted from their home for no reason other than the fact that they were omitted from the original tenancy agreement. So, the renting homes Act provides for that. This is not the change that I'm consulting on. We've already done that in the renting homes Act. I'm just reminding Members, and I will be writing to all of you reminding you of what we passed, and I think you'll be pleased when you see how radical it was. 

In terms of what you said about yourself and your landlord practices, I think that's the case for 98 per cent of the landlords in Wales. Most of our landlords are good landlords. What we have to do here is prevent the rogue landlords from giving the sector a bad name. So, a landlord who behaves themselves in the manner that you've just described will have nothing to fear from this Act or any of the other Acts that we've passed. Only those landlords who seek to do things like retaliatory evictions, have properties that are not fit for human habitation, or seek to manipulate the market in a way—so, for example, they seek possession of their house solely for the purposes of putting the rents up—will have problems with this. Because you cannot do it in the first six months of a tenancy, and then you need to give six months. So, everybody will have a minimum of 12. Then after that you've got a rolling six months. If you've got somebody willing to rent the house for slightly more, they're not still going to be there six months later.

So, we expect this to make a significant difference to those kinds of evictions. We also expect the Act in itself to make a significant difference, because what it will do is it will reward the good landlords. You're absolutely right in identifying that we need the good landlords to stay in the market. It will discourage yet more of the rogue landlords that we seek to have out of the sector—that's the truth.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister.