With the greatest of respect, I am saying that that is one of the reasons why I fear not having a minimum notice period. My Constituency has the highest number of second homes and short-term lets of almost anywhere in the country. There is a significant price differential, and a significant amount of hassle is being heaped on landlords by this Bill, which might push them in that direction. This may be one of the foreseeable consequences. I have raised it on Second Reading and in private conversations with the hon. Gentleman.

New Clause 2, on rent repayment orders, would enable local housing authorities to impose financial penalties on certain individuals where they believe that a housing offence has been committed by a body corporate. Last year, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in which it said that, where a rent-to-rent company takes over the running of a property, it cannot pass its legal liabilities on to the property’s landlord. The Government have amended the Bill to reverse that decision, which will mean that landlords can be fined even in cases where a rent-to-rent company or similar has, without the landlord’s knowledge, been asked by a tenant to illegally sub-let a property. According to data from Direct Line, one in 10 renters admits to sub-letting part of the home in which they live, of whom 48% did not disclose it to their landlord and three quarters did not review their existing lease agreement to determine whether sub-letting was permitted. The Amendment would deal with the main concern associated with the use of rent-to-rent companies. It would address the problem of landlords and others who willingly hide behind such companies to let properties while avoiding liability for rent repayment orders, without penalising those who are innocent victims of such companies. I welcome and recognise the fact that the Government have seen sense and tabled their own amendment, mirroring my proposed new clause 2, in the form of proposed Government new clause 34. I therefore withdraw proposed new clause 2.

Amendments 8 and 9, in my name, are about court reform. As has been discussed, amendment 9 will require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the operation of residential possession proceedings before determining the commencement date for the provisions of chapter 1 of part 1. Reforms to the justice system are vital for tenants and landlords to be able to enforce their rights when section 21 is rightly ended.

The Law Society has warned that

“the courts are vastly overstretched: possession claims and the eviction process can take many months, sometimes more. The bill may lead to an increase in contested hearings in the short term as landlords that would previously have used no-fault provisions will instead have to prove fault. The government should outline how it intends to manage increased demand on the courts and what additional resourcing it will put in place to deal with existing backlogs.”

Data from the Ministry of Justice shows that it takes a mean average of almost 29 weeks between a private landlord making a legitimate possession claim to repossession happening under section 8 procedure. The Ministry of Justice notes:

“Timeliness figures are higher than the legal guidelines.”

It is not acceptable that, where tenants are committing antisocial behaviour, fellow tenants and neighbours are expected to wait over half a year before the problem is resolved.