English: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 44 seeks to enable enforcement authorities to use the fixed-penalty notice as a means to also request repayment of prohibited payments and holding deposits on behalf of contract holders. The matter was debated at some length, as David Melding said, at Stage 2, and the position remains the same. The primary route through which the recovery of prohibited payments should be pursued should be the court. To involve local authorities in these matters, even when they have been given the power to do so rather than being put under a duty, risks drawing them away from other enforcement matters. So, the first issue I have with this amendment is one of capacity. We should not forget that local authorities enforce a wide range of housing matters, many of which relate to the safety and well-being of contract holders, as well as the overall standards of properties in the private rented sector. These are vitally important and apply to everyone. They would now also be called upon to enforce the provisions under this Bill. Again, these apply to all existing and prospective contract holders, and the more resource that can be given to investigating offences, issuing fixed-penalty notices or bringing proceedings through the courts, the less likely the situation the amendment seeks to address is to occur. The second issue is one of expertise, and who is best placed to undertake the work envisaged by the amendment. My response to this is that it is the court, as it is here where the contractual disputes are brought. The courts have the experience and capacity to deal with the type of dispute that might result from a prohibited payment having been made or a holding deposit not repaid. My view on this is reaffirmed by the fact that amendment 44 does not provide for enforcement of any requirement to repay. It is quite likely, therefore, that disputes would still be heard by the court if the landlord or agent chose to ignore the LHA's request for them to repay the prohibited payment. As such, the amendment does not provide any guarantee that the contract holder would be repaid the prohibited payment, as there would be no penalty for failing to do so and no means to require them to do so. This underscores my view that local authority efforts are best directed elsewhere. I do, however, recognise entirely that there is a need to ensure that contract holders are supported in their efforts, if required. Currently, contract holders can take their own legal advice or can get free, impartial support from Shelter Cymru, Citizens Advice, or NUS Cymru if they are students. These organisations are highly skilled and experienced in dealing with redress for contract holders. But, I want to make sure that the process is made as easy to follow as possible for contract holders. In that regard, I want to draw attention to amendment 26 tabled by the Government, which places a requirement on local housing authorities to signpost and provide information to contract holders who may require assistance in obtaining repayment of a prohibited payment or a holding deposit, equipping a contract holder with all the information that they need, and putting them in touch with organisations who are experienced in providing advice, help and support that will ultimately help a contract holder in making a claim through the court, should that be necessary. For these reasons, I ask Members to reject amendment 44. Amendment 43 seeks to further increase the fixed penalty to £2,000. Amendments made at Stage 2 responded to concerns that £500 may be too low to act as an effective deterrent. I firmly believe that, at £1,000, the fixed-penalty notice is set at a reasonable level and that further increasing it is unlikely to alter the behaviour of any landlord or agent. I suppose one could argue that a higher amount would create a revenue-making stream for the enforcement authority. However, receipts form fixed-penalty notices may only be used for the purpose of the authority's functions relating to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, so there is little merit in making that argument. Members may be looking across the border at the Tenant Fees Act 2019, highlighted by David Melding, which comes into force in England later this year. But their enforcement arrangements are entirely different to our own, and the Act itself is entirely different. Let us not forget that the enforcement authority has the option to move straight to a prosecution. In which circumstances, a person found guilty of an offence may face an unlimited fine. Our expectation is that the enforcement authority will select the most appropriate course of action - a fixed-penalty notice or a prosecution - based on their assessment of a specific case. Of course, the ultimate result of failure to comply with a provision of the Act could be, as David Melding acknowledged, the loss of the individual's or agent's licence, which is, in my opinion, a bigger deterrent and the reason why most people will not find themselves in this position. Finally, should it become apparent that the fixed-penalty notices are not working as a quick and simple alternative to prosecution, which is what they are intended to do, we have the option of increasing the level of fixed-penalty notice under Section 13 (3) of the Bill, should it become necessary in the future. The difference is that such a change would be based on the experience of enforcement authorities and the evidence of the effectiveness, or not, of this legislation. On that basis, I am unable to support these amendments and ask Members to vote against them both.
Welsh: Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Diben gwelliant 44 yw galluogi awdurdodau gorfodi i ddefnyddio'r hysbysiad cosb benodedig fel ffordd hefyd o ofyn am ad-dalu taliadau gwaharddedig a blaendaliadau cadw ar ran deiliaid contract. Cafodd y mater ei drafod yn helaeth, fel y dywedodd David Melding, yng Nghyfnod 2, ac mae'r sefyllfa yr un fath. Dylai'r prif lwybr ar gyfer adennill taliadau gwaharddedig fod drwy'r llys. Y peryg o gynnwys awdurdodau lleol yn y materion hyn, hyd yn oed pan roddwyd y pŵer iddynt wneud hynny yn hytrach na'u bod yn cael eu rhoi o dan ddyletswydd, yn tynnu eu sylw oddi ar gamau gorfodi eraill. Felly, y broblem gyntaf sydd gennyf â'r gwelliant hwn yw'r capasiti. Ni ddylem ni anghofio bod awdurdodau lleol yn gorfodi ystod eang o faterion tai, llawer ohonynt yn ymwneud â diogelwch a lles deiliaid contractau, yn ogystal â safonau cyffredinol eiddo yn y sector rhentu preifat. Mae'r rhain yn hanfodol bwysig ac yn berthnasol i bawb. Byddai galw arnynt bellach hefyd i orfodi'r darpariaethau o dan y Bil hwn. Unwaith eto, mae'r rhain yn berthnasol i holl ddeiliaid contract presennol a darpar ddeiliad contract, a po fwyaf o adnoddau y gellir eu rhoi i ymchwilio i droseddau, cyflwyno hysbysiadau cosb penodedig neu ddwyn achos i'r llysoedd, y lleiaf tebygol o ddigwydd fydd y sefyllfa y mae'r gwelliant yn ceisio mynd i'r afael â hi. Yr ail fater yw un o arbenigedd, a phwy sydd yn y sefyllfa orau i ymgymryd â'r gwaith a ragwelir gan y gwelliant. Fy ymateb i hyn yw mai'r llys yw hwnnw, gan mai dyma lle y caiff yr anghydfodau contract eu dwyn. Mae gan y llysoedd y profiad a'r capasiti i ymdrin â'r math o anghydfod a allai ddeillio o fod taliad gwaharddedig wedi ei wneud neu flaendal cadw heb ei ad-dalu. Caiff fy marn i ar hyn ei chadarnhau gan y ffaith nad yw gwelliant 44 yn darparu ar gyfer gorfodi unrhyw ofyniad i ad-dalu. Mae'n eithaf tebygol felly y byddai anghydfodau yn dal i gael gwrandawiad yn y llys pe byddai'r landlord neu'r asiant yn dewis anwybyddu cais yr awdurdod tai lleol iddynt ad-dalu'r taliad gwaharddedig. Yn hynny o beth, nid yw'r gwelliant yn darparu unrhyw warant y byddai deiliad y contract yn cael y taliad gwaharddedig wedi'i ad-dalu, gan na fyddai unrhyw gosb am fethu â gwneud hynny a dim modd o'i gwneud yn ofynnol iddynt wneud hynny. Mae hyn yn ategu fy marn ei bod yn well i awdurdodau lleol gyfeirio eu hymdrechion i fannau eraill. Fodd bynnag, rwy'n cydnabod yn llwyr fod angen sicrhau bod deiliaid contract yn cael eu cefnogi yn eu hymdrechion, os oes angen. Ar hyn o bryd, gall deiliaid contract geisio eu cyngor cyfreithiol eu hunain neu gallant gael cymorth diduedd am ddim gan Shelter Cymru, Cyngor ar Bopeth, neu UCM Cymru os ydynt yn fyfyrwyr. Mae'r sefydliadau hyn yn fedrus ac yn brofiadol iawn wrth ymdrin â chael iawndal i ddeiliaid contract. Ond, rwyf eisiau gwneud yn siŵr y gwneir y broses mor hawdd i'w dilyn â phosib i ddeiliaid contract. Yn hynny o beth, hoffwn dynnu sylw at welliant 26 a gyflwynwyd gan y Llywodraeth, sy'n gosod gofyniad ar awdurdodau tai lleol i gyfeirio a rhoi gwybodaeth i ddeiliaid contract a allai fod angen cymorth i gael ad-daliad o daliad gwaharddedig neu flaendal cadw, gan roi'r holl wybodaeth y mae ei hangen i ddeiliad contract, a'i roi mewn cysylltiad â sefydliadau sydd â phrofiad o ddarparu cyngor, cymorth a chefnogaeth a fydd yn y pen draw yn helpu deiliad contract i wneud hawliad yn y llys, pe byddai angen. Am y rhesymau hynny, rwy'n gofyn i'r Aelodau wrthod gwelliant 44. Mae gwelliant 43 yn ceisio cynyddu ymhellach y gosb benodedig i £2,000. Roedd gwelliannau a wnaed yng Nghyfnod 2 yn ymateb i bryderon y gallai £500 fod yn rhy isel i fod yn gyfrwng atal effeithiol. Rwy'n credu'n gryf, ar £1,000, y gosodir yr hysbysiad cosb benodedig ar lefel resymol a bod cynyddu hwnnw eto yn annhebygol o newid ymddygiad unrhyw landlord neu asiant. Mae'n siŵr y gallai rhywun ddadlau y byddai swm uwch yn creu ffrwd gwneud refeniw ar gyfer yr awdurdod gorfodi. Fodd bynnag, ni ellir ond defnyddio arian a dderbynnir drwy hysbysiadau cosb benodedig at ddibenion swyddogaethau'r awdurdod sy'n ymwneud â gorfodi darpariaethau'r Ddeddf, felly nid oes fawr o werth gwneud y ddadl honno. Efallai bod yr Aelodau yn edrych dros y ffin ar Ddeddf Ffioedd Tenantiaid 2019, a amlygwyd gan David Melding, sy'n dod i rym yn Lloegr yn ddiweddarach eleni. Ond mae eu trefniadau gorfodi nhw yn hollol wahanol i'n rhai ni, ac mae'r Ddeddf ei hun yn gwbl wahanol. Gadewch inni beidio ag anghofio bod dewis gan yr awdurdod gorfodi i fynd yn syth at erlyniad. O dan yr amgylchiadau hynny, gallai unigolyn a ganfyddir yn euog o drosedd wynebu dirwy ddiderfyn. Ein disgwyliad ni yw y bydd yr awdurdod gorfodi yn dewis y ffordd fwyaf priodol o weithredu - hysbysiad cosb benodedig neu erlyniad - yn seiliedig ar eu hasesiad o achos penodol. Wrth gwrs, canlyniad methu â chydymffurfio â darpariaeth yn y Ddeddf yn y pen draw, fel y gwnaeth David Melding ei gydnabod, fyddai o bosib colli trwydded yr asiant neu'r unigolyn, sydd, yn fy marn i, yn fwy o atalfa a dyma'r rheswm pam na fydd y rhan fwyaf o bobl yn cael eu hunain yn y sefyllfa hon. Yn olaf, os daw hi'n amlwg nad yw'r hysbysiadau cosb benodedig yn gweithio fel dewis amgen cyflym a syml i erlyniad, sef yr hyn y bwriedir iddynt ei wneud, mae gennym y dewis o gynyddu lefel yr hysbysiad cosb benodedig o dan Adran 13 (3) o'r Bil, pe byddai angen gwneud hynny yn y dyfodol. Y gwahaniaeth yw y byddai newid o'r fath yn seiliedig ar brofiad awdurdodau gorfodi a'r dystiolaeth o ba mor effeithiol, neu beidio, yw'r ddeddfwriaeth hon. Ar y sail honno, ni allaf gefnogi'r gwelliannau hyn ac rwy'n gofyn i'r Aelodau bleidleisio yn erbyn y ddau ohonynt.