English: 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.
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Fel y mae Delyth wedi'i ddweud, byddai ei gwelliannau 32 a 33 gyda'i gilydd yn cael gwared ar allu'r landlord i gyflwyno rhybudd o dan adran 173 mewn perthynas â'r mwyafrif helaeth o gontractau meddiannaeth, gan ei osod yn lle hynny gyda seiliau dros feddiannu sy'n debyg ond nid yr un peth â'r dull sydd ar waith yn yr Alban. Mae'r seiliau newydd hyn a nodir mewn Atodlen 8ZA newydd naill ai'n orfodol neu'n ddisgresiynol ac yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i landlord gyflwyno o leiaf 12 mis o rybudd cyn y gellir gwneud cais am feddiant. Fodd bynnag, dim ond ar gyfer contractau meddiannaeth a nodir yn Atodlen 8A, sy'n darparu o leiaf ddeufis o rybudd, y byddai gallu landlord i gyflwyno rhybudd adran 173 yn cael ei gadw, felly dyma fyddai'r amddiffyniad gwannaf yn y Deyrnas Unedig mewn gwirionedd, ac nid y cryfaf, fel roedd hi'n ei honni. Nid wyf yn hyderus fod y seiliau a restrir yn yr Atodlen 8ZA newydd o reidrwydd yn cynnwys yr holl resymau pam y gallai landlord fod yn awyddus i geisio meddiant. Mae angen ystyriaeth fanwl ac ymgynghori ar ddeddfwriaeth fel hon sy'n seiliedig ar seiliau i sicrhau bod y seiliau y darperir ar eu cyfer yn cynnwys yr holl sefyllfaoedd a all godi. Heb y gwaith hwn, mae'n bosibl y bydd landlordiaid mewn sefyllfa ble na allant fyth adennill meddiant ar eu heiddo. Ni chredaf fod y cydbwysedd rhwng seiliau gorfodol a disgresiynol yn iawn, chwaith - er enghraifft, sail orfodol ar gyfer meddiant morgeisai, ond sail ddisgresiynol ar gyfer newid eiddo yn ôl i fod yn gartref teuluol. Yn ychwanegol at fy mhryderon ynghylch y seiliau newydd hyn, yr hyn sy'n anodd yn fy marn i gyda gwelliannau Delyth yw'r gofyniad i landlord ddarparu o leiaf 12 mis o rybudd. Mae Rhentu Cartrefi bob amser wedi ceisio taro'r cydbwysedd cywir rhwng sicrwydd deiliadaeth digonol i ddeiliad contract a'r gallu i landlord gymryd meddiant ar eu heiddo. Ni chredaf y gellid honni hyn pe baem yn cael gwared ar y gofyniad hwn am gyfnod rhybudd o 12 mis cyn y gallai achos adennill meddiant gychwyn. Am y rhesymau hyn, ni allaf gefnogi gwelliannau 32 a 33. Gan droi at welliannau Laura, 46 a 51, mae gennyf bryderon difrifol iawn ynglŷn â sut y mae'r rhain yn effeithio ar sicrwydd deiliadaeth deiliad contract. Mae'r diwygiadau'n nodi nifer o seiliau gorfodol ac yn galluogi landlord i geisio meddiant gyda deufis yn unig o rybudd ar y mwyaf. Nid wyf yn cefnogi cyflwyno seiliau gorfodol newydd o fewn Bil a chanddo'r nod o gynyddu sicrwydd deiliadaeth. Ystyriwyd y defnydd o seiliau gorfodol yn ofalus iawn gan Gomisiwn y Gyfraith wrth baratoi Rhenti Cartrefi, ac maent yn parhau mewn nifer fach iawn o achosion yn unig. Sail y Bil hwn yw darparu o leiaf chwe mis o rybudd i ddeiliad contract nad yw wedi gwneud unrhyw beth o'i le yn ystod eu meddiannaeth. Rwy'n deall y gallai fod gan landlord resymau da dros fod yn awyddus i werthu'r eiddo neu fyw ynddo eu hunain, ond nid deiliad y contract sydd ar fai, ac yn sicr, ni ddylai'r rhesymau hyn gael blaenoriaeth dros eu gallu i ddod o hyd i gartref addas arall. Byddai deufis o rybudd o dan yr amgylchiadau hyn yn cynnal y system bresennol a'r effaith ddinistriol y mae'n ei chael ar deuluoedd sy'n derbyn hysbysiadau byr o'r fath. Yn yr un modd, mewn perthynas â gwelliant 52, nid yw deiliad contract ar fai os yw morgeisai yn dymuno ceisio meddiant, ac ni allaf dderbyn bod sail orfodol o ddeufis o rybudd yn unig yn angenrheidiol yma chwaith. Fel y dywedaf, mae'r Bil hwn yn ceisio ymestyn y cyfnod a fydd gan ddeiliad contract i ddod o hyd i gartref addas, nid ei leihau, ac am y rhesymau hyn, Lywydd, ni allaf gefnogi'r gwelliannau hyn. Diolch.