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.