English: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Evidence given by tenant organisations in respect of holding deposits showed that, at times, there's been a degree of misselling on the part of some letting agents or landlords, where the offer made when the holding deposit is taken from the prospective tenant can be different to what is subsequently set out in the written contract. To a degree, this may sometimes be reasonable, reflecting, say, that after a reference check is made, more robust guarantor arrangements are needed, or another variation to the tenancy is required. However, amendment 42 aims to address a form of sharp practice where a tenant is persuaded into handing over a holding deposit, and where the difference in the final contract is not as a result of the circumstances of the tenant, but due to the letting agent overpromising or giving less than accurate information upfront. Amendment 42 inserts new paragraphs 10 and 11 into Schedule 2. New paragraph 10 sets out circumstances when a holding deposit paid to a letting agent does not have to be repaid. That is, if all reasonable steps are made to assist the landlord, who also takes all reasonable steps to enter into a contract, but ultimately the contract holder fails to enter the contract. New paragraph 11 provides that the exceptions in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, which deal with repayment if parties fail to enter into a contract, may not be relied upon unless information specified by Welsh Ministers in regulations has been provided to the contract holder before payment of the holding deposit. This ensures there are no surprises when a contract holder comes to enter into the contract. If information is not provided, a landlord or letting agent cannot rely on an exception to the requirement to repay a holding deposit. Consequently, it must be repaid. During scrutiny of the Bill, it became apparent that there was uncertainty over whether payment of a holding deposit gives a contract holder first right of refusal to rent the property. Amendment 36 clarifies that, in relation to a holding deposit, references to a contract holder are to the person who's right of first refusal has been reserved by the holding deposit. The deposit provides a guarantee so that, as soon as the necessary checks have been successfully completed, the prospective contract holder will be able to exercise their right to rent the dwelling, subject to the contract. There have been allegations that some landlords or agents take more than one holding deposit at a time to pressure contract holders to sign a contract. The amendment reserves the right of first refusal to the person who's right has been reserved by the deposit, clarifying to whom this right has been given. Amendment 31 has been tabled to ensure an amount of a holding deposit in excess of one week's rent is a prohibited payment. We were concerned that there may be some ambiguity about the amount that could be charged, which could undermine the confidence of a contract holder as they start looking for a home. Contract holders will know the sum they need to pay is one week's rent or less. Anything over that sum is a prohibited payment. On reviewing the Bill after Stage 2 we considered there was a benefit in clarifying provision in Schedules 1 and 2 around holding deposits, including to whom a holding deposit could be paid. This might be a landlord or a letting agent. Amendments 29, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 remove any ambiguity around who a deposit is paid to and who should repay it. Amendment 30 is a minor amendment to reflect that a person paying a holding deposit is a prospective contract holder at the point the deposit is paid rather than the contract holder. Amendments 65 and 66 have been brought by Leanne Wood to provide for a 48-hour cooling-off period during which the contract holder can notify the landlord that they do not wish to enter into the contract and receive a refund of the holding deposit. We rejected the same amendment at Stage 2, and I ask Members to reject this amendment again, because it is likely to be prejudicial to other prospective contract holders as well as the landlord. The purpose of a holding deposit is to reserve the property for a short period of time to allow for checks and paperwork to be completed by the landlord. It prevents other potential contract holders from seeking to enter into a contract on the property, giving a right of first refusal to the party who has paid the holding deposit. The landlord, having taken a holding deposit, should not be offering the property to other possible contract holders - something we've made clearer through our amendment 36. If amendments 65 and 66 were to be agreed, it's possible that a contract holder could put down holding deposits on a number of properties, knowing they will get their money back. This would mean that other contract holders would be prevented from agreeing a contract on a property in which the contract holder who'd paid the holding deposit had only a partial interest. We made the point at Stage 2 that a cooling-off period may be appropriate where distance selling arrangements apply, and a cooling-off period would give an automatic right to cancel and rescind a contract shortly after the contract is formed. However, restrictions on distance selling arrangements are made because no-one else is deprived as a result, other than the seller, and because a contract has been entered into. My concern is, where a holding deposit is paid, other contract holders could miss out on finding a home and there's no binding requirement to enter into the long-term contract. We've brought forward amendment 42 to address concerns raised during scrutiny that misleading information was being given to prospective tenants. I consider that setting expectations of the information to be provided to the prospective tenant, via regulations, at the point a holding deposit is paid will give sufficient safeguard against any sharp practice. I hope that the arguments I've set out against amendments 65 and 66 are sufficient in highlighting their disadvantage. Amendment 67, also tabled by Leanne Wood, would prevent holding deposits being repaid if the contract holder knowingly and recklessly provides false or misleading information to the landlord. An identical amendment was tabled at Stage 2. I stated at Stage 2 that I did not consider the amendment necessary because we'd be introducing a criminal burden of proof that would be difficult to prove - that is, whether the contract holder had knowingly or recklessly provided false or misleading information. An agent or landlord would have to prove the contract holder knowingly or recklessly provided that false or misleading information. As I stated at Stage 2, failing a credit or reference check does not give sufficient grounds to retain a holding deposit under Schedule 2. I know this has been a concern raised by many stakeholders, and I can assure Members this is not a permitted exception, as it is not a ground reflected in Schedule 2. For these reasons, I cannot support amendment 67 and ask Members to reject it. To summarise, therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm asking Members to support amendments 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, and to reject those tabled by Leanne Wood, which are numbered 65, 66 and 67.
Welsh: Diolch ichi, Dirprwy Lywydd. Mae tystiolaeth a roddwyd gan sefydliadau tenant mewn cysylltiad â blaendaliadau cadw yn dangos, ar adegau, bod rhywfaint o gam-werthu gan rai asiantau neu landlordiaid, lle gall y cynnig a wnaed pan gymerir blaendal y darpar denant fod yn wahanol i'r hyn a osodir wedyn yn y contract ysgrifenedig. I raddau, gall hyn weithiau fod yn rhesymol, gan adlewyrchu, dyweder, yn dilyn gwneud gwiriad o eirda, fod angen trefniadau gwarantwr sy'n fwy cadarn, neu amrywiad arall i'r denantiaeth. Fodd bynnag, mae gwelliant 42 yn ceisio ymdrin â math o ymarfer heriol lle mae tenant yn cael ei ddarbwyllo i drosglwyddo blaendal cadw, a lle nad yw'r gwahaniaeth yn y contract terfynol o ganlyniad i amgylchiadau'r tenant, ond oherwydd bod yr asiant gosod tai yn addo gormod neu'n rhoi gwybodaeth nad oedd yn hollol gywir ymlaen llaw. Mae gwelliant 42 yn mewnosod paragraffau 10 a 11 newydd yn Atodlen 2. Mae'r paragraff 10 newydd yn nodi'r amgylchiadau pan nad oes raid ad-dalu blaendal cadw a dalwyd i asiantau gosod tai. Hynny yw, os gwneir pob cam rhesymol i gynorthwyo'r landlord, sydd hefyd yn cymryd pob cam rhesymol i ymrwymo i gontract, ond yn y pen draw fod deiliad y contract yn methu ymrwymo i'r contract. Mae paragraff newydd 11 yn dweud na ellir dibynnu ar yr eithriadau ym mharagraffau 8, 9 a 10, sy'n ymdrin ag ad-dalu os bydd partïon yn methu ymrwymo i gontract, os na fydd gwybodaeth a bennir gan Weinidogion Cymru mewn rheoliadau i ddeiliad y contract cyn talu blaendal cadw. Mae hyn yn sicrhau nad oes unrhyw beth annisgwyl pan fydd deiliad y contract yn dod i lofnodi'r contract. Os na ddarperir gwybodaeth, ni all landlord neu asiant gosod tai ddibynnu ar eithriad i'r gofyniad i ad-dalu'r blaendal cadw. O ganlyniad, rhaid iddo gael ei ad-dalu. Wrth graffu ar y Bil, daeth yn amlwg fod ansicrwydd a oedd taliad blaendal cadw yn rhoi'r hawl gyntaf i wrthod i ddeiliad contract i rentu'r eiddo. Mae gwelliant 36 yn egluro, mewn cysylltiad â blaendal cadw, fod cyfeiriadau at ddeiliad contract yn gyfeiriadau at y person y mae ei hawl gyntaf i wrthod yn cael ei chadw gan y blaendal cadw. Mae'r blaendal yn darparu gwarant fod darpar ddeiliad y contract, cyn gynted ag y bydd y gwiriadau angenrheidiol wedi'u cwblhau'n llwyddiannus, yn gallu arfer ei hawl i rentu annedd, sy'n ddarostyngedig i'r contract. Gwnaed honiadau bod rhai landlordiaid neu asiantau yn cymryd blaendal gan fwy nag un daliad ar yr un pryd er mwyn gosod pwysau ar bobl i lofnodi contract. Mae'r gwelliant yn amddiffyn yr hawl gyntaf i wrthod i'r person sydd wedi talu blaendal, gan egluro i bwy y rhoddwyd yr hawl hon. Cyflwynwyd gwelliant 31 i sicrhau bod swm blaendal cadw sy'n uwch na rhent un wythnos yn daliad gwaharddedig. Roeddem yn pryderu bod rhywfaint o amwysedd ynghylch y swm y gellid ei godi, a allai danseilio hyder y deiliad contract wrth iddynt ddechrau chwilio am gartref. Bydd deiliaid contractau yn gwybod mai'r swm sydd angen iddynt ei dalu yw rhent un wythnos neu lai. Mae unrhyw beth dros y swm hwnnw yn daliad gwaharddedig. Wrth adolygu'r Bil ar ôl Cyfnod 2 ystyriwyd y byddai'n fuddiol egluro'r ddarpariaeth yn Atodlenni 1 a 2 o ran cynnal blaendaliadau, gan gynnwys i bwy y gellid talu blaendal cadw. Gallai hyn fod yn landlord neu asiant gosod tai. Mae gwelliannau 29, 37, 38, 39, 40 a 41 yn dileu unrhyw amwysedd ynghylch i bwy y telir blaendal a phwy ddylai ei ad-dalu. Mae gwelliant 30 yn fân welliant i adlewyrchu bod person sy'n talu blaendal cadw yn ddeiliad contract arfaethedig ar yr adeg y telir y blaendal yn hytrach nag yn ddeiliad y contract. Cyflwynwyd gwelliannau 65 a 66 gan Leanne Wood i ddarparu 48 awr o gyfnod pwyllo pan fydd modd i'r deiliad contract hysbysu'r landlord nad yw eisiau ymrwymo i'r contract a chael ad-daliad o'r blaendal cadw. Rydym wedi gwrthod yr un gwelliant yng Nghyfnod 2, a gofynnaf i'r Aelodau wrthod y gwelliant hwn unwaith eto, oherwydd mae'n debygol o fod yn niweidiol i ddarpar ddeiliaid contract eraill yn ogystal â'r landlord. Diben blaendal cadw yw dal yr eiddo am gyfnod byr o amser i ganiatáu i landlord wneud y gwiriadau a'r gwaith papur. Mae'n atal deiliaid contract posibl eraill rhag ymrwymo i gontract ar yr eiddo ac yn rhoi hawl cynnig cyntaf i'r person sydd wedi talu'r blaendal cadw. Ni ddylai'r landlord, wedi iddo gymryd blaendal cadw, gynnig yr eiddo i ddeiliaid contract posibl eraill - rhywbeth yr ydym wedi ei egluro'n well yn ein gwelliant 36. Pe bai gwelliannau 65 a 66 yn cael eu cytuno, mae'n bosibl y gallai deiliad contract osod blaendal cadw ar sawl eiddo, gan wybod y byddai'n cael ei arian yn ôl. Byddai hyn yn golygu y gallai deiliaid contract eraill gael eu hatal rhag cytuno ar gontract ar eiddo yr oedd deiliad y contract a oedd wedi talu'r blaendal cadw â diddordeb rhannol yn unig ynddo. Gwnaed y pwynt yng Nghyfnod 2 y gallai cyfnod pwyllo fod yn briodol lle mae trefniadau gwerthu o bell yn gymwys, a byddai cyfnod pwyllo yn rhoi hawl awtomatig i ganslo a diddymu'r contract yn fuan ar ôl i'r contract gael ei ffurfio. Fodd bynnag, gwneir cyfyngiadau ar drefniadau gwerthu o bell i sicrhau nad oes unrhyw un arall yn cael ei amddifadu o ganlyniad i hynny, ar wahân i'r gwerthwr, ac oherwydd bod yna ymrwymiad i gontract. Fy mhryder i yw, lle telir blaendal cadw, y gall deiliaid contract eraill gael cam wrth geisio dod o hyd i gartref ac nid oes unrhyw ofyniad gorfodol i ymrwymo i gontract hirdymor. Rydym wedi cyflwyno gwelliant 42 i ymdrin â phryderon a godwyd yn ystod y gwaith craffu bod gwybodaeth gamarweiniol yn cael ei rhoi i ddarpar denantiaid. Credaf y bydd pennu disgwyliadau o ran yr wybodaeth sydd i'w darparu i ddarpar denant, drwy reoliadau, ar yr adeg y telir blaendal cadw, yn ddigon i ddiogelu rhag unrhyw arferion diegwyddor. Gobeithio bod y dadleuon yr wyf wedi'u hamlinellu yn erbyn gwelliannau 65 a 66 yn ddigonol i dynnu sylw at eu hanfantais. Byddai gwelliant 67, a gyflwynwyd hefyd gan Leanne Wood, yn atal ad-dalu blaendaliadau cadw pe byddai deiliad y contract yn fwriadol ac yn ddi-hid yn darparu gwybodaeth anwir neu gamarweiniol i'r landlord. Cyflwynwyd gwelliant oedd yn union yr un fath yng Nghyfnod 2. Nodais yng Nghyfnod 2 nad oeddwn yn ystyried bod y gwelliant yn angenrheidiol gan y byddem yn cyflwyno baich prawf troseddol a fyddai'n anodd ei brofi - hynny yw, a oedd deiliad y contract yn darparu gwybodaeth anwir neu gamarweiniol yn fwriadol neu'n ddi-hid. Byddai asiant neu landlord yn gorfod profi bod deiliad y contract wedi darparu gwybodaeth yn ddi-hid neu'n fwriadol. Fel y dywedais yng Nghyfnod 2, nid yw methu gwiriad credyd neu gyfeirio yn sail ddigonol i gadw'r blaendal cadw dan Atodlen 2. Gwn fod hyn wedi bod yn bryder a godwyd gan lawer o randdeiliaid, a gallaf sicrhau'r Aelodau nad yw hyn yn eithriad a ganiateir, gan nad yw'n cael ei adlewyrchu yn Atodlen 2. Am y rhesymau hyn, ni allaf gefnogi gwelliant 67 a gofynnaf i'r Aelodau ei wrthod. I grynhoi, felly, Dirprwy Llywydd, rwyf yn gofyn i'r Aelodau gefnogi gwelliannau 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 a 42, a gwrthod y rhai a gyflwynwyd gan Leanne Wood, sef rhifau 65, 66 a 67.