Which brings us to group 3. This relates to standard and fixed-term contracts that can be terminated with two months' notice. The lead amendment is amendment 9. I call on Julie James to move the amendment and speak to the other amendments in the group. 

Amendment 9 (Julie James) moved.

I move amendment 9 in my name. Amendment 9 further clarifies when a higher education institution is able to provide a two-month notice under either section 173 or, potentially, a landlord’s break clause. A higher education institution will only be allowed to provide two months’ notice to a contract holder who is provided with accommodation in order to be able to undertake a course of study. This is irrespective of whether the accommodation has also been provided for another purpose. I urge Members to support this amendment.

Regarding amendment 53 tabled by Laura Anne Jones, as I indicated when the same amendment was tabled at Stage 2, I do recognise the issue the amendment aims to address. Since the Stage 2 committee meeting, my officials have met with representatives of the three armed forces families federations and with the Ministry of Defence. The core concern is that the MOD provides only three months’ notice to terminate occupation of armed forces accommodation. Therefore, if a property owned by a member of the armed forces has been rented privately, the general requirement under the Bill to give six months’ notice could cause difficulties. However, it is clear from the discussions that have taken place that there are complexities that need to be further examined to ensure any provision we make to address this problem is sound. We also need to consider the position of someone whose landlord joins the armed forces after the start date of their contract, and could potentially be subject to a change in their security of tenure as a result. Therefore, I do not support amending the Bill now before these complexities are fully understood. As it stands, we already have regulation-making powers to provide for such an exemption if it proves to be appropriate and necessary.

Amendment 54, also tabled by Laura Anne, relates to the renting out of properties that are normally occupied by ministers of religion. Such private renting is, I understand, quite common for periods when such properties are not needed to house a minister of religion. I indicated during Stage 1 that I did not see a case for someone to be given only two months’ notice in such circumstances—a view with which the committee was in agreement. I remain to be convinced that this is necessary, and therefore do not support this amendment. However, should it at some point be decided that it is necessary, there is already a regulation-making power that could be used for such an exemption. 

Minister, I appreciate your comments on our amendments. Amendments 53 and 54 seek to provide an exemption to the Bill for members of the armed forces, as you explained, who have been given notice to leave service accommodation, as well as properties occupied by ministers of religion. Both amendments respond to concerns raised about the unintended consequences of the Bill. The National Residential Landlords Association Wales have highlighted that members of the armed forces who have been given notice to leave their service accommodation may face increased risk of homelessness or other housing difficulties due to the difference in notice periods provided for within this Bill compared to that used by the MOD.

I'm grateful to Cytûn for their support in helping us to draft amendment 54. They have also raised concerns about the impact of the Bill on faith communities. This includes potentially being able to rotate clergy on an annual basis between ministry roles and problems with a lengthy notice period before securing possession of a parsonage if a minister is removed due to a serious disciplinary issue. Minister, I appreciate that you've previously stated that you've been in discussions with stakeholders about both issues, as you outlined. Whilst I believe that our amendments will address the concerns that have been raised, I would appreciate if you could give me an update on the work that your officials have undertaken on this. When will you address these concerns, should you not be swayed by these amendments now? 

Was that the end of your contribution?

Yes.

Sorry—my mistake. I wasn't sure whether you'd lost the sound or whether that was the end of the contribution. That's great. Thank you. There are no other speakers, so I'll call Julie James to respond to the debate, if she wishes to.

Briefly, just to ask Members to support amendment 9, for the additional clarity it brings. I do ask Members to reject amendments 53 and 54 on the basis that I've already set out. We are in discussion with both groups of stakeholders and we would much rather use the regulation powers already available to us to tackle these concerns once the full extent of the issues has been properly explored. 

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 9 in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 9 is agreed.

Amendment 9: For: 45, Against: 1, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been agreed