9. & 10. Debate: The General Principles of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill and the financial resolution in respect of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 7:38 pm on 13 October 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Delyth Jewell Delyth Jewell Plaid Cymru 7:38, 13 October 2020

It's a pleasure to follow David Melding in this debate. Plaid Cymru supports the general principles of this Bill, but we don't believe that the Government has gone far enough. We of course endorse the recommendations of the committee reports, and thank the Chair and the committee clerks for their support in the evidence gathering that led to our recommendations in that report. It's worth highlighting, as David Melding has just done, that the Bill amends an Act that hasn't yet been implemented, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. And as the committee has noted as well, having this significant gap between a Bill becoming law and being implemented is rare and regrettable. If we've learnt anything this year, it's that inaction and lethargy by Government isn't conducive to good public service, and I hope that that lesson has been learned from the experience. But that is a sour note and I hope to be more positive in some of these remarks. 

It's clear that although the Bill extends the period before no-fault evictions are allowed, it does represent a climb-down by the Government, as the current First Minister, of course, pledged a complete ban during his leadership campaign. Now, that's something that we, as Plaid Cymru, will want to return to in later stages. The extended notice period is a start, and the Government has justified extending the period to six months because the previous two months' notice was not enough time for tenants to secure alternative accommodation in the same community or area as their child attends a school. It's not enough time to arrange changes to care packages, to save up to cover the costs of the move and plan for a move around tenants' everyday lives, including employment and family commitments. 

Now, I think the first point there is possibly the most persuasive: why should the education and personal development of any child be sacrificed? Because, too often in this country, we regard property as an investment and privilege the rights of landlords over the rights of children to enjoy a stable childhood. Six months is an improvement—it, in effect, guarantees a tenancy for a year—but I'd still question whether it would always be enough time. In rural areas, or in Valleys communities, there's often a shortage of suitable accommodation. So, even six months' notice may not be enough time for a family to find another property that enables their child to stay in the same school.

Llywydd, we really do need to put this legislation in context. If it passes unamended, tenants in Wales will continue to have fewer protections against no-fault evictions than in Scotland and, indeed, in England, where the proposed legislation is for a complete ban on no-fault evictions. The question really has to be: why the rollback? The Government has said that a complete ban would breach human rights, but, if that is the case, why haven't any wealthy landlord associations taken the Scottish Government to court? 

Now, the Government has also said that landlords should be able to get their property back, for example, if they only own one property and face homelessness themselves. Now, in those circumstances, of course we'd want protection, but there will still be a range of other reasons where a landlord could take this course of action. All we want to see is that a good tenant who pays rent and looks after the property has their right to a stable family life protected, and an extra four months of protection from no-fault evictions simply doesn't go far enough for that. We should end no-fault evictions, like the First Minister promised. We should have a policy of supporting tenants to become home owners by establishing mechanisms where they can buy the home from landlords who want to leave the market, and also fund housing associations to take over properties from landlords who want to leave the market. Because even the landlord associations agree that we should be driving poor landlords out, and the past 20 years have simply seen too many poor landlords. And the perception, encouraged by the media, that property is a get-rich-quick scheme—that has to end. A house is someone's home first and foremost; it shouldn't be seen as an asset, a means of accumulating wealth, especially not on the back of other people's poverty.

So, there's much in this Bill that we do welcome, but there's a lot more that we'd like to see the Government doing and we will be pushing this at later stages. Diolch.