The next item is the statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government on the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister to make the statement. Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Today, I am introducing the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill to the Senedd. This is an important Bill, and an unusual Bill in the sense that it will amend an Act of the Assembly, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, that has not yet been brought into force. I will have more to say on that presently, but first, I want to take a few moments to explain what it is that this Bill seeks to achieve, and how it will change the relationship between landlords and tenants, or 'contract holders' as they are described in the 2016 Act.

This Bill will amend the 2016 Act to provide greater security of tenure for contract holders who rent their homes in Wales, in particular those who live in the private rented sector and who will, when the provisions of the 2016 Act come into force, do so under standard occupation contracts with their landlord. These standard contracts will become the default contract type in the sector, replacing assured shorthold tenancies made under the Housing Act 1988.

The Bill will increase security of occupation under a periodic standard contract in the following ways: it will extend the minimum notice period for a landlord’s notice given under section 173 of the 2016 Act, which is similar to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, from two months to six months; it will restrict the issuing of such a notice until at least six months after the occupation date of the contract—the 2016 Act currently sets this at four months. Together with the extended notice period, this will double, from six months to one year, the minimum occupation period for someone who does not breach their contract. 

The Bill will also prevent a landlord from serving a new section 173 notice until at least six months after the expiry or withdrawal of the previous section 173 notice. This is to ensure that landlords are not tempted to issue repeated section 173 notices 'just in case', which would be damaging to a contract holder’s sense of security and certainty. However, in recognition of the fact that landlords do, on occasion, make technical mistakes when serving notices, the Bill also includes a provision that enables a landlord to withdraw and reissue a notice within 14 days.

The Bill will also make a number of changes to the way that fixed-term standard contracts operate so that landlords are not tempted to use fixed-term contracts as a way of circumventing the additional security that will be provided under periodic standard contracts. It will remove the ability a landlord would otherwise have had to issue a notice during a fixed-term standard contract requiring the contract holder to leave at the end of the fixed term. Instead, a landlord will be required to serve a section 173 notice to bring to an end the periodic standard contract that will automatically arise at the end of the fixed term. That section 173 notice would, of course, be subject to the extended six-month notice period, regardless of the length of the initial fixed-term period.

The Bill will also prevent the inclusion of a landlord’s break clause in fixed-term standard contracts of less than 24 months, and prevent the activation of any break clause before month 18 of a fixed-term contract. Again, this will be subject to a six-month notice period.

To ensure that there are no loopholes that unscrupulous landlords might seek to exploit, we will also be removing the arrangement under the 2016 Act that currently allows a landlord to seek possession if a contract holder does not confirm, within two months of being notified, that they are content with a variation that has been made to a term in their contract. In addition, a regulation-making power will be used to limit the use of a term, which allows the contract holder to be excluded from the property for specific periods, for example, to contracts for student accommodation let by higher education institutions.

And finally, the Bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the 2016 Act. These include removing the subjective element of the test that establishes whether a modification to a fundamental term in a contract improves the contract holder’s position. This is to preclude unscrupulous landlords from seeking to undermine security of occupation by pressurising contract holders to agree that a notice period of less than six months, for example, would be in their interests.

The Bill also provides exemptions for particular types of very specific contracts, such as prohibited-conduct standard contracts, service occupancies or supported accommodation, where it is accepted that shorter notice periods and greater certainty regarding contract-end dates is required. These are very tightly controlled in the Bill to prevent any potential misuse, while still enabling social landlords, as well as employers who undertake a landlord function in relation to some of their employees, to have the certainty required in particular circumstances.

My previous statement to Members on this Bill was back in September, when I provided a brief summary of our proposals as they stood at that time and initial feedback from the consultation exercise that had recently concluded. You will know from the statement I issued last month that the final consultation response has since been published, and that the changes we are seeking to make have not been met with universal support. That is to be expected, but this Government makes no apologies for bringing forward legislation that will, as part of our wider programme to support a professional and well-regulated sector offering high-quality homes to those who wish to rent, create conditions of improved security and certainty for the growing number of our citizens who rely on the private rented sector for their accommodation.

Earlier, I mentioned that this Bill was unusual as it amends the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 that has not yet come into force. The reasons for the delay in implementing the 2016 Act are complex, but I am confident that we now have the assurances we need from the UK Government that the necessary infrastructure will be in place to enable us to go live with the new arrangements before the end of this Assembly term. The 2016 Act, will, when implemented, bring a number of significant wider benefits for those who rent their home in Wales. I wrote to all Members in October last year to set out these benefits, and have re-circulated that letter as it provides more detail than time will allow for now.

This Bill, if passed, will add a further significant benefit by ensuring that a possession notice, where there is no breach of contract, cannot be served for the first six months of occupation, and where possession is sought, giving the contract holder six months’ notice. This will provide valuable time for individuals and families faced with possession under section 173 and the organisations and agencies that support them, to find a new home that is right for them and make all necessary arrangements for a smooth transition to their new home.

I look forward to working with you and all of our stakeholders constructively in the coming months, as this Bill makes its way through the scrutiny process. Diolch.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. I don't know if this is a first; it has probably happened in other legislatures, but to have a Bill that amends an Act that has not yet been commenced, despite being over three years old, is not a regular situation—let me put it no more strongly than that. Indeed, we now hear that the 2016 Act may not be commenced until the end of this Assembly term, so that will be getting on to four and a half years after it was passed.

I think the amending Bill, anyway, reflects a shift in England to end no-fault evictions. However, Deputy Presiding Officer, the Welsh Government does not go quite as far as the English proposals in that section 173 will remain in place with longer notice times and other restrictions. So, I think we need to explain why the difference. The UK Government intends to abolish section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, which is basically equivalent to our section 173, and has just restated in December that it will go ahead to do this. So, the change in Conservative administration has not deflected from that legislative purpose. That said—and I do hope the Minister will give a clear explanation why we are taking a slightly more roundabout approach to this question—we will support the general direction of travel. We do believe that the private rented sector needs strengthening to give a new generation of tenants security and confidence. That said, the legitimate rights of landlords also need to be protected. We want a fair, balanced system, so that we have an effective supply of private rented properties.

Restricting or abolishing section 173 requires section 8 to be robust and effective. Allowing eviction with cause is essential to a healthy private rented sector. Currently, costs—court costs in particular—are a problem, as well as the time it takes to serve a section 8 notice, and there are other legitimate questions that, for instance, the Residential Landlords Association have raised, including whether section 8 should be extended when there is a need to do so. For instance, persistent anti-social behaviour is not a cause to use section 8 at the moment.

And also—and this is my final comment—the Residential Landlords Association have particular concerns about how the student rental market will operate under the reforms that are proposed. I know that we will have an opportunity, obviously, at Committee Stage, to go through these, and I will certainly push these items in detail, so I do hope that we can have a bit more insight this afternoon, but, when the Bill does commence its legislative scrutiny, we'll be seeking to improve this Bill, because we do believe these reforms are due.

Well, thank you for that. I think we're broadly in agreement; it's just about the best way to do it. So, we have tended to speak colloquially in terms of abolishing a no-fault eviction, but, actually, all the legislatures that have so-called abolished a no-fault eviction have simply substituted a whole series of arrangements in which a tenant can be evicted through no fault of their own. So, for example, there are 18 separate grounds under which this can be done in Scotland. We're not yet clear what the English equivalent of that will be, but, for example, if you have a landlord that requires possession of the property because otherwise they would themselves be homeless, then, in Scotland, you would be required to go through a process by which you'd prove that you were going to either sell the house or you required it for yourself and so on. Those have proven costly and quite difficult to enforce. I'm not quite clear yet where England is going with that, but we imagine something similar.

In Wales, we have a very large number of private sector landlords, who are perfectly good landlords, excellent to have a relationship with, where, actually, they own one house, because, for example, a couple have got together and they had two houses and now they live in one of them, and, if that relationship breaks down, that couple may well need that house back. What we're doing is trying to get a balance between the needs of a landlord in that circumstance and the needs of the tenants to be able to organise their lives and find themselves somewhere else to live in a reasonable set of circumstances.

So, these are all balances, and I'm very much looking forward to working with the committee to work through what the balances might be. We think we've come to the right balance in extending the notice period, so that, in an initial period you have a year, but in any other circumstance you have six months in order to find yourself and your family somewhere else to go, and, in the meantime, the landlord can probably make other arrangements for that period in order to retain the house.

In circumstances in other jurisdictions where, for example, the landlord is saying that they need to sell—rather than taking up time now, we can all think of circumstances in which a legitimate landlord might want to sell and then the sale falls through, or a whole number of other things that can happen. So, what we've done is try to provide some certainty on both sides of that line and get a good balance between the rights of the tenant and the rights of the landlord, and

I've set out today, Deputy Presiding Officer, what the 2016 Act is also doing in terms of security of tenure, because I think it's really—. Because the Act has not been brought into force, it's very possible to think of this extension of the notice period in terms of the Housing Act 1998 itself, rather than in terms of our Act, which would fundamentally change the landscape in Wales anyway.

Thank you, Minister, for the statement.

We welcome this legislation as a step in the right direction. For most of the past 25 years, the private rented sector has placed so much power with landlords and made the sector easy for some people to benefit from using unscrupulous methods, as the Minister has said. 

I think it's worth noting, and it's been alluded to already, that in a sector where the balance has for so long been so much in favour of one side you'll inevitably get people who want to keep it that way. In Wales, I think there are at least two professional organisations that have paid public affairs staff to represent landlords. Now, there's nothing wrong with that at all, but that is compared with, again, I think, just one person representing tenants in the private sector, and she seems to do that in her spare time.

There will be some who note the commitment made by the First Minister in his leadership campaign to end the use of no-fault evictions, which, as has been said, isn't what the proposal is that we have today. Some might wonder whether it's still the case that generation rent faces opposition in making the sector fairer.

I've listened to what the Minister's had to say, and I can anticipate some of the reasons why what we have here isn't an end to no-fault evictions, just a change in the notice period. For example, it's fair enough that landlords might have a mechanism for being able to gain possession of their properties so that they can exit the sector, and it's preferable that tenants can be allowed to move on without any suspicion being placed on them that they've done something wrong. But, I am concerned that six months isn't going to enable protection for some of the most vulnerable tenants—those who claim benefits, and those with very small children where frequently moving house would be no good for their development. So, I look forward to scrutinising the plans and that time limit, and seeing whether there's any room for manoeuvre on this. 

I also wonder whether the Minister has given some thought as to some policy mechanisms that could be used to allow landlords to exit the market without placing these very vulnerable people at risk. Firstly, I'd ask, would you consider establishing a capital fund for housing associations and local authorities to acquire homes currently in the private rented sector—a fund, of course, that could become self-sustaining—and ensure that the existing tenants can simply move into the social sector? After all, many families will be on the waiting lists already.

Secondly, would you consider establishing what we could brand as a right to buy for tenants in the private sector? I emphasise 'in the private sector'. By this, I mean providing the right for tenants who have occupied their homes for a specified period to have first refusal when the landlord wishes to sell, and to establish Welsh Government support for that person to move onto the ladder as a way of helping first-time buyers, with the obvious caveats around criteria, of course.

Finally, would you explore ways in which a landlord could exit the market earlier through establishing ways in which a property could only be sold to a person guaranteeing the tenancy continued? If you could put these in place—these measures—then I'd suggest we would be able to offer more than just a six-month notice period, and we could even end no-fault evictions altogether.

There are some interesting issues around this. The whole issue of acquisition of a social home by registered social landlords or the local council is an interesting one, and, actually, we already encourage that. Councils and registered social landlords can use a variety of Welsh grant funding to do just that.

The difficulty is where the home in question doesn't meet any of the standards. So, obviously, they can't take on a private sector home that's substandard because the rooms are tiny, it's overcrowded and all of the rest of it. So, there are some limitations there and I would be reluctant to relax the level of social housing in order to accommodate that. We have had some conversations about interim housing and so on, but it's very difficult to square that circle without relaxing standards that we'd all be concerned to keep in place. But, just to be clear, that already could happen in circumstances where there aren't those barriers, if the house is up to social-house standard.

The whole issue about whether a landlord can sell a house with a tenant in it is, of course, an interesting one. That's a matter for the market. Of course, some landlords do exactly that, because if they're selling it on as a business to an investor who wants to keep it as an investment property and wants the income, then that happens now. Unfortunately, though, if they're wanting to expand the range of purchasers to people who might want to be owner-occupiers, then, obviously, having vacant possession is something that's essential for that, so that's, I'm afraid, an operation of the market and what you can and can't get. Unfortunately, we don't control—it is not all devolved to us, so we can't control some aspects of that, but it is something that we're very keen to work with.

If there's going to be an extension to Help to Buy, then this Government will certainly be looking to see whether we can extend that to circumstances in which somebody already occupies a home, which might help with some parts of that. But, again, the standard of the house is an issue, and many houses in the private rented sector, I fear, fall well below the standard for social housing.

The other issue is protecting the tenancy in those circumstances, and, again, that's an action for the market, I fear. So, I'm certainly well aware of, in my own constituency, tenants who have been passed from landlord to landlord because the houses have been sold with them in, and that works perfectly well, but, again, if there's competition for student housing and so on, then the house will be partitioned and there are various problems with the market.

We are working with the UK Government—which I should have said in response to David Melding as well, actually—in terms of regulation of what estate agents and managing agents are allowed to say in their packs when they sell on and what the circumstances are. That's not devolved to us, but we are working very well, actually, with the UK in terms of what that market might look like in terms of regulating that. So, we are looking at all those and I'm very much looking forward to exploring in committee some of the other ideas that you've taken forward.

In terms of the absolute abolition, nobody can do that because, obviously, a landlord has the right to possession of their home under the Human Rights Act 1998 A1P1, as the jargon would have it. It engages article 1 of protocol 1 of the human rights Act: you have the right to possession of your property. What we're doing is making sure that it's a fair playing field for everybody involved. 

Can I thank the Minister for the statement? I believe that housing is one of the most important things that we have and I think that it really is important that the housing sector, both private, local authority, other social housing landlords and the private sector are all of a high standard.

Most tenants and landlords have a good relationship. I mean, most landlords look after their properties and treat their tenants well, and I think, sometimes, when we start bringing in legislation, discussing these things, we give the impression that we think all landlords are bad. Also, most tenants pay their rent on time, look after the house, cause no problems to those living around them, and in a lot of places, including large parts of my constituency, you wouldn't know which houses were owner-occupied and which were lived in by people who were privately renting, some of whom do it for several years. And some of the nicer parts—. If I can go into your constituency, Minister, and if you go down into the marina, large numbers of properties there are privately rented, they're all of good quality, and there are no problems being caused by them, as I'm sure that you're more aware than I am of that.

Unfortunately, there are some bad landlords and there are some bad tenants, and I've talked to people who have rented their houses out to get them back without any internal doors and semi-demolished. So, there are bad tenants. I've also seen people who are tenants living in properties where you could put your fist between the wall and the window frame. So, you've got bad people on both sides. I think we do need to acknowledge that.

I welcome the fact you're ending retaliatory eviction. I think that was always the case: 'Please will you repair my house?' 'Get out in three months' was acting as a dissuader.

I noticed you didn't make a mention of this in your statement, but, as you know, I'm very keen on smoke alarms, electrical and gas certificates and those checks. I mean, they're still in the Act, I understand. Are you going to say how often they have to be checked after they have been installed? Because that's something that a lot of people are very concerned about, in that they're checked once, but if somebody lives there nine or 10 years, are they going to be checked again? And that's a question, perhaps, that some of us who are owner-occupiers would ask ourselves: 'How often do we check our smoke alarms, make sure our gas is safe and check electrical safety?' So, I think some of us could certainly learn from that as well.

The last question I've got is—. I mean, obviously the greater security is welcomed. You mentioned six months a lot during it. I'm not going to read them all out to you because the Deputy Presiding Officer, amongst others, wouldn't allow me to, but you mentioned six months a lot. Why have you chosen six months as opposed to three months or 12 months? I hear what you said about no-fault evictions, that you have to have reasons why people can be evicted even if they have no fault, but I think the general principle of no-fault evictions is one that many of us like and it means that, when people leave, it does show that they haven't been evicted for that. They can be evicted if somebody has to live in the house or the person who owns it goes bankrupt or whatever reason due to financial problems, but actually having it on the statute books that we support no-fault evictions is something I'm not quite sure why you don't want. 

Thank you for that series of remarks and questions. I completely agree with you that the vast majority of landlords and tenants in Wales are perfectly reasonable people having a perfectly reasonable life in a perfectly good arrangement, one with the other. And you mentioned part of my own constituency, where you're absolutely right—we have very few problems that I'm aware of with the private rented sector, in good-quality housing, with decent people living in it.

This Bill is around sorting out the provisions for both rogue landlords and rogue tenants. And as I've emphasised, if your tenant is badly behaved, then this Bill does nothing to take away your right to evict a tenant who hasn't paid their rent, or is indulging in anti-social behaviour, or is damaging the property, or a large number of other things. Those routes to possession are still there. 

In terms of how you characterise a no-fault eviction, the point is all of those things—if you want the house back because you want to sell it, or you want the house back because you want to live in it, that is a no-fault eviction, because the tenant won't have done anything wrong. The fact that you're proving a ground doesn't take away from the fact the tenant won't have done anything wrong and is being evicted through no fault of their own. So, it's just not possible to have no circumstance in which a tenant that's perfectly well behaved themselves cannot be evicted, because, actually, the landlord, in circumstances where they might be homeless, for example, would have the right to possession of their own property, and I don't think any of us would really see that as a problem.

And the problem is this business about getting the balance right between the two issues. The vast majority of landlords in Wales have one house. Of course, we have many landlords that have more than one house, but the vast majority of them only have one house. And so we need to make sure that the private rented sector is fit for purpose, both for those who want to rent that house out—we very much want them to rent their houses out and to get a reasonable rate of return, and to afford good-quality accommodation who want to rent—but also, should they find themselves in circumstances where they need that house, or their circumstances change and they need the money from a house, they can do that, and it doesn't put them off putting the house on the market, and we just have another empty home on our street, which does nobody any favours either. So, this is all about the balance about how we do that. And rather than have complex legal circumstances in which you have to prove a certain set of circumstances, which we know are causing real problems in other jurisdictions with what the level of proof is and what you have to do, we think this is a better compromise.

The six months is around the way that the 2016 Act works, so that it gives somebody a full 12 months from the start of their contract to the end. So, actually, you'll get a full 12 months. The six months then only kicks in once you're over that 12 months. So, if you're already there for two years, for example, you then have six additional months. So, it's all around how the new standard contracts in the 2016 Act actually function. 

I must declare an interest at this point as I am a landlord of a couple of rented properties in the private sector. 

So, thank you for your statement, Minister, and I agree with your statement that we have to give security of tenure. But that must go both ways. It must be balanced to ensure sustainability, to meet supply and demand. Protection must also be there for landlords, and there are very few landlords who would not want to encourage lengthy tenancies, because the first month's rent is taken up with all the costs incurred, which are paid now by the landlord. So, it doesn't bode well for someone to have a six-month tenancy. So, lengthy tenancies are encouraged by landlords.

But I have been an excellent landlord, taking people's personal circumstances into account. But I'd like to say that the measures that you've taken risk alienating the vast majority of private sector landlords who are conscientious and responsible and compliant with the law. And these measures will put off many people seeking to become landlords. They've spoken to me and said so—'I've decided not to rent anymore; I'm putting my property up for sale.' And this is quite common, forcing many to leave the sector. So, to be honest, if these measures were in place, I would not become a landlord.

The fact that the yet to be enacted renting homes Act, and these new additions to the legislation, will discourage new landlords should be of grave concern to the Welsh Government. So, without the private rented sector, our homelessness and housing crisis would be so much worse. And, Minister, your Government has catastrophically failed to address the housing shortfall. 

You've built fewer than 8,000 new homes. You would have to build 12,000 new affordable homes over the next 12 months in order to meet your own target, which is already woefully inadequate. So, in order to do that, you would have to employ every house builder in the UK. So, without landlords, homelessness would be exponentially higher. But rather than encouraging private landlords, your Government is determined to make it impossible for private landlords with one or two properties to operate.

So, Minister, when you consulted upon these proposals, there was huge opposition to them, so why did you ignore the views of the sector? Your proposed changes risked also disrupting the student and young professional market. So, Minister, how do you propose to mitigate the disruption to the annual cycle necessary for these types of lettings? Your original Bill failed to take into account the impact of anti-social tenants, and you have yet again failed to address this in your new proposals. However, your statement talks about closing loopholes for unscrupulous landlords. So, Minister, do you agree with me that bad tenants vastly outweigh bad landlords, and that demonising landlords will do nothing to tackle our housing shortage? Aside from the negative impact this legislation will have upon landlords, what assessment have you made of the impact this will have on rental agreements of less than six months? And finally, Minister, you mention that you hope to enact the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 by the end of this Assembly term. So, can you tell us whether the Act will be commenced before this Bill is passed, or will you wait for these amendments to be made prior to commencement? Thank you.

I think Caroline Jones contradicted herself quite a few times during her speech. On the one hand, she tells us that landlords like long tenancies, on the other hand, she tells us that they can't exist if they don't have six-month shorthold assured tenancies. So, you can't have both of those things. The renting homes Act, which is already enacted—it doesn't require to be enacted, it is already enacted by this Assembly, it is already an Act—needs to be commenced. There's quite a big difference between those two things. It will be commenced by the end of this Assembly term. Clearly, we can't commence any amendments to the Act before we've commenced the Act, so they will be commenced at the same time. There have been serious administrative and ICT difficulties in commencing the Act, but it is certainly enacted.

The minimum period of security of tenure of 12 months in Wales is put in place by that Act, which this Assembly saw fit to pass. It is a groundbreaking Act, and it certainly does change the circumstances for the private rented sector in Wales. However, we have absolutely no evidence that good landlords will be put off by the Act—why would they be? Any good landlord at the moment would want security of tenure of 12 months for a decent tenant—why would that change? The only thing this will do is make sure that rogue landlords, who treat their tenants very badly, by putting them permanently under notice to quit and enacting retaliatory evictions, will no longer be able to operate inside the private rented sector in Wales.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. I think your statement illustrates just how difficult it is for an ordinary tenant to fully understand the law that governs their landlord relationship. It is quite complicated. I think I just wanted to pick up something that Delyth Jewell commented on, which is the security of tenure for private rented tenants. Because, as you say, the majority of landlords only have one home, and therefore if they go away—for a job or whatever—they want to be able to rent their place out with the full knowledge that they would be able to move back in again when they wish to return. Nevertheless, the taxation system already identifies those who live in a home in place A, and then invest in a house for renting out. So, I want to explore with you whether it's not possible to give somebody who's living in a home that is an investment opportunity by the landlord to have more security of tenure than 12 months. Because in the old days, in the second world war, people did have security of tenure; if somebody wanted to sell that property, they had to sell to somebody with a guaranteed occupancy to be respected by the new owner. I think it's a very important issue when it comes to families with children who are potentially still having to move around every 12 months, if you've got a landlord who's completely taking this to the letter of the law, and that's obviously hugely disruptive to any child's education. So, I wondered if you could just clarify whether it will be possible to differentiate between somebody who's letting out their sole property or somebody who's letting out a property they hold as an investment.

Secondly, a niche point, which is that you're going to change the regulating powers to limit the use of a term so that people can be excluded from a property for specific periods. So, I think we probably are talking about student accommodation here. I know that some universities use the period between June and September to make some income by renting to people who want to attend a conference and things like that. So, I just wondered if that's not now going to be possible, because obviously it's likely to increase the rent that the student will have to pay, if that were to be the case.

On that point, that's exactly why we're changing the regulations. At the moment, the regulations are not clear and actually any landlord can do that for a variety of reasons. We've had quite a lot of consultation responses back saying that actually that's a loophole. So, if you were looking to implement a no-fault eviction outside the thing you could just exclude the tenant for a number of time periods and actually make it very difficult for them to live somewhere. So, what we're doing is we're saying that by regulation we would limit that to certain circumstances—students being a classic example. Actually, there are some tied church properties and other such properties that probably would fall within it, but we're looking to regulate which particular tenancies can have that happen for exactly that reason. It's commonplace for universities to have conferences and so on during the long recess. So, it's to facilitate that, but they're not the only ones. There are other properties that fall into that category. What we don't want is a sort of carte blanche for that to be able to happen. So, that's why we were looking to regulate for that. 

In terms of the minimum period for security of tenure, it does give 12 months. It's six at the moment. So, it is a big improvement. It's very hard to legislate for the kind of investment property/not investment property thing that you're talking about, because people would just—[Inaudible.] If I said that if you've got two houses you're not subject to it and if you've got four you are, people would just make three companies. So, there's a whole series of anti-avoidance provisions that you have to look at. So, it's actually really difficult to do that without having a plethora of anti-avoidance provisions crop up. 

So, what we've tried to do is to make it simple for people to understand and to make it sure and actually most landlords won't be doing this anymore, because it's not a way to easily get rid of somebody and get somebody in who pays more rent, which is the most fundamental reason that it happens. Deputy Presiding Officer, I personally have quite a big caseload of people who have been evicted through no fault of their own, just because a tenant who can pay better has been found, and this will certainly prevent that. 

Thank you very much, Minister.