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.