We will move to group 1, and that relates to repossession grounds. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 32, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth Jewell. 

Amendment 32 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's not a secret that we believe that there should be a ban on no-fault evictions, and the amendments that we've tabled today reflect this position. Our amendments in this group are based on the Scottish model, which bans no-fault evictions but does allow evictions in a limited number of circumstances. The reason for using the Scottish approach is not because we think that that approach is perfect, although it is considerably better than the approach proposed today, but it's because if we went for a complete ban, considering what's been said at previous stages, I suspect the Minister would argue that this would risk being incompatible with human rights laws. Personally, I think evicting and making people homeless for no reason would itself be a violation of human rights, but, unfortunately, people who are homeless lack the financial resources to establish lobby groups for all parties and also to take the Government to court. So, instead, we have lifted the Scottish model, which, of course, has been in law for a number of years and therefore it is reasonable for us all to assume that that would be compatible with human rights law. It would significantly strengthen the rights of tenants and bring us far closer to ending no-fault evictions. At Stage 2, the Minister explained that the grounds may be too narrow and prevent a landlord from reclaiming their property if they fell outside these grounds. So, that is why the amendment gives the Minister the power to modify the grounds.

Speaking more generally, I want to outline my group's approach to the legislation. That is, we do not believe the Government has got the balance right between the rights of tenants, often the poorer party, and landlords, which is the group with the historic lobbying power. There hasn't been enough movement from the Government on this, at least not movement in the direction we would like to see. There was, of course, a pledge made by the First Minister for a total ban on no-fault evictions, but this has been watered down to merely increase the notice period required from two to six months. That's considerable movement towards the position of landlords and is, I'm afraid, a reflection of the power imbalance in terms of different groups and their access to understanding these issues and being able to lobby for change. It remains our understanding that the UK Government intends to ban no-fault evictions in England, but they've postponed that legislation due to the pandemic. Nonetheless, it means that passing this legislation today would leave Wales as the outlier. The rights of tenants in Wales would be the weakest, and that is a position my group cannot support.

In any other circumstances, we might at least consider this slight movement to be worth while, but the pandemic, to all intents and purposes, means that we are discussing here what the legal regime will be post pandemic. So, whatever happens this afternoon won't in practice impinge on tenants' rights at the moment, in the short term. However, in the longer run, passing this Bill would be damaging, as it would inevitably delay the changes we would want to see implemented. As such, without significant movement from the Government today, we will be voting against the Bill and seeking to introduce a far stronger Bill, should we be successful in forming the next Government. That would be a fairer approach for all, setting out our clear intention to bring forward our own legislation rather than accepting what is being offered here. I look forward to the debate. Diolch yn fawr.

Our Conservative amendments 51 and 52 introduce some mandatory grounds for repossession. I'm supportive of the overarching aim of the Bill to increase security of tenure for renters, as are most of us across the Chamber. However, it's worth acknowledging the concerns of many landlords and letting agents about the impact the Bill may have on their ability to regain possession of their property should they need to as a last resort. These concerns have been exacerbated given the bottleneck that courts in Wales are now experiencing, with research from National Residential Landlords Association Wales showing that it now takes private landlords an average of 22.6 weeks from making a claim in the courts for a property to be repossessed to it actually happening. This causes disruption and concern for landlords, increases the cost of action, and prevents homes from being available to people who need them. As such, the Association of Residential Letting Agents have called for additional mandatory grounds to be included in the Bill to ensure that it works and achieves a balanced approach. Amendment 51 therefore includes grounds such as if a landlord intends to sell the property or move into the property as suggested by ARLA. While the Minister did not agree with this in Stage 2, it is important to recognise that people's circumstances change. If a landlord is facing homelessness or financial difficulties, then they may need to move into their property or to sell it, and the Bill should recognise such exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 51 also includes grounds for anti-social behaviour and domestic abuse. I'd be interested to know how the Minister would respond to written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru, which states that,

'careful monitoring would need to be established to glean the experience of both tenants and landlords' to ensure that there are no unintended consequences that undermine the ability of landlords to respond to such serious issues.

Amendment 52, meanwhile, enables a mortgage lender to regain possession of a property. Whilst supporting the intentions of the Bill, UK Finance note concerns that the effect of the increased credit risk could have a dampening effect on the private rented sector in Wales, which would be counter to the Welsh Government's desire to see a vibrant, viable, high-quality and growing PRS for those who choose or need it. We are all aware of the issues in the supply of homes in Wales, and it is important that the Bill does not have any unintended consequences on the availability of homes. Does the Minister have any plans to review the impact of the Bill on housing supply in Wales, as part of the post-implementation review? Diolch.

The Minister, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. As Delyth has said, her amendments 32 and 33 combined would remove the landlord's ability to serve notice under section 173 in relation to the vast majority of occupation contracts, placing it instead with grounds for possession similar but not the same as the approach taken in Scotland. These new grounds set out in a new Schedule 8ZA are either mandatory or discretionary and require a landlord to serve a minimum 12 months' notice before a possession claim can be made. However, the ability for a landlord to serve a section 173 notice would be retained only for occupation contracts set out in Schedule 8A, which provide a minimum of two months' notice, so it would in fact be the least protection in the United Kingdom, and not the most, as she asserted.

I am not confident that the grounds listed in this new Schedule 8ZA would necessarily cover all the reasons why a landlord may wish to seek possession. Grounds-based legislation such as this does require detailed consideration and consultation to ensure the grounds provided for cover all the eventualities that may arise. Without this work being undertaken, landlords may indeed find they are unable to ever gain possession of their property.

I also don't think the balance between mandatory and discretionary grounds are right, either—for example, a mandatory ground for mortgagee possession, but a discretionary ground for the return of a property to a family home. In addition to my concerns around these new grounds, my real difficulty with Delyth's amendments is the requirement for a landlord to provide a minimum 12 months' notice. Renting Homes has always sought to strike the right balance between a contract holder having sufficient security of tenure and a landlord being able to obtain possession of their property. I do not think this could be claimed if we were to dump this requirement for a 12 months' notice period before possession proceedings could commence. For these reasons, I cannot support amendments 32 and 33.

Turning to Laura's amendments 46 and 51, I have very serious concerns about how these impact upon a contract holder's security of tenure. The amendments set out a number of mandatory grounds and enable a landlord to seek possession with just a maximum of two months' notice. I do not support the introduction of new mandatory grounds within a Bill aimed at increasing security of tenure. The use of mandatory grounds was considered very carefully by the Law Commission in preparing Renting Homes, and they remain in only a very small number of cases. The basis of this Bill is to provide a minimum six months' notice to a contract holder who has done nothing wrong during their occupation. I understand that a landlord may have good reasons to want to sell the property or live in it themselves, but these are not the fault of the contract holder and certainly should not take priority over their ability to find another suitable home. Two months' notice in these circumstances would simply maintain the current system and the devastating impact it has on families subject to such short notices.

Similarly, with regard to amendment 52, a contract holder is not at fault should a mortgagee wish to seek possession, and I cannot accept that a mandatory ground with just two months' notice is necessary here, either. As I say, this Bill is seeking to extend the period a contract holder will have to find a suitable home, not reduce it, and for these reasons, Llywydd, I cannot support these amendments. Diolch.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank Members for taking part in the debate. I think this is the first time that Laura and I have responded to legislation together since she has come to this role, so I welcome her to that. I think that the short debate that we've just had does go to show that there still is this imbalance in terms of influence between tenants and landlords. I'd certainly agree with what the Minister was saying about the Conservative amendments. I still do think that we need to go further in Wales and, for that reason, we will be pushing our amendments in this group to a vote, and I hope that Members will consider what was said. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 32 be agree. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and we will therefore suspend proceedings temporarily to prepare for our first vote. We will do this only once during this Stage 3 debate. So, we will suspend proceedings. Thank you. 

Plenary was suspended at 13:12.

The Senedd reconvened at 13:17, with the Llywydd in the Chair.

So, that brings us to our first vote, and we will proceed to a vote on amendment 32 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, eight abstentions and 32 against, therefore amendment 32 is not agreed.

Amendment 32: For: 8, Against: 32, Abstain: 8

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 33, Delyth Jewell, is that moved? 

Amendment 33 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Yes. 

Yes. Thumbs up means it is moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 33 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed. 

Amendment 33: For: 8, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected