English: Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Our review of the Bill brought into focus some of the drafting around the regulation-making power to vary the meaning of 'permitted variation' of rent in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. A permitted variation in relation to rent payable under a standard occupation contract means a variation agreed between the landlord and contract holder; variation made pursuant to a term of the contract that provides for rent to be varied; or a variation by or as a result of an enactment. Amendment 35 is a technical amendment to ensure that the regulation-making power under section 7 is not limited by paragraph 10 of that Schedule solely to making provision in connection with permitted variations. The Bill makes this clear. I hope Members will accept this change. Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52 tabled by David Melding would amend the Assembly procedure for making regulations to amend the definition of a permitted payment under section 7 and to change the level of fixed penalty under section 13 to a superaffirmative procedure and to set out the procedure to be followed. I cannot support these amendments and ask Members to reject them. When using these regulation-making powers, we will consult upon them as is custom and practice, either on the basis of a policy consultation or on the draft of the regulations themselves. The affirmative procedure provides for regulations to be laid, scrutinised by committees and approved by the Assembly. This is a proportionate level of scrutiny. At times, it is more helpful to consult upon a policy proposal to test assumptions. A consultation on draft regulations may not be an appropriate way to engage stakeholders such as tenants. However, amendments 48 and 49 remove this option and create a longer drawn-out process, possibly discouraging engagement with the development of regulations. At Stage 2, we explained that regulations under section 7 are likely to be used to address changes of practice rather than to make a major overhaul to the permitted payments. There are relatively few permitted payments in the Bill, and whilst these may change over the years it is difficult to see how they may be added to in any significant way. Regulations under section 13 are most likely to be used to reflect cost of living changes so that the level of fixed penalty-notices is proportionate to the costs agents and landlords incur. In the event that a more substantive change was being proposed, the option for detailed scrutiny by Assembly committees is open under the affirmative arrangements. Both sets of arrangements will futureproof the Bill. The superaffirmative procedure could mean that six months is spent reviewing a relatively modest increase of perhaps less than £100 to the level of a fixed-penalty notice. I'm not persuaded that this is proportionate or appropriate. Amendment 50 has also been brought forward, again from Stage 2, by David Melding to amend the Assembly procedure so that regulations to amend the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in respect of publicising letting fees should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I cannot support this amendment and urge Members to vote against it on the basis that the regulations would be limited to what is on the face of the Bill. As was argued at Stage 2, the regulation-making power here is very limited, allowing only for what is specifically provided for in section 19 of the Bill, which is that regulations may amend chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to require a letting agent to ensure that any online advertiser publicises the agents' fees and to allow more than one penalty to be imposed on a letting agent in relation to the same breach of duty in chapter 3. We cannot divert from these provisions, so I'm unconvinced that the affirmative procedure is required for narrowly focused regulations such as these. I ask that Members support amendment 35 and reject amendments 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.
Welsh: Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amlygodd ein hadolygiad o'r Bil rywfaint o'r drafftio ynghylch y pŵer i wneud rheoliad i amrywio ystyr 'amrywiad a ganiateir' o ran rhent ym mharagraff 1 o Atodlen 1. Mae amrywiad a ganiateir o ran rhent sy'n daladwy o dan gontract meddiannaeth safonol yn golygu amrywiad a gytunwyd rhwng deiliad y contract a'r landlord; amrywiad a wnaed yn unol ag un o delerau contract sy'n darparu ar gyfer amrywio rhent; neu amrywiad drwy neu o ganlyniad i ddeddfiad. Mae gwelliant 35 yn welliant technegol er mwyn sicrhau nad yw'r pŵer i wneud rheoliadau o dan adran 7 wedi ei gyfyngu gan baragraff 10 o'r Atodlen honno i wneud darpariaeth mewn cysylltiad ag amrywiadau a ganiateir yn unig. Mae'r Bil yn gwneud hyn yn glir. Gobeithiaf y bydd Aelodau yn derbyn y newid hwn. Byddai gwelliannau 48, 49, 51 a 52, a gyflwynwyd gan David Melding yn diwygio gweithdrefn y Cynulliad ar gyfer gwneud rheoliadau i ddiwygio'r diffiniad o daliad a ganiateir o dan adran 7 ac i newid lefel y gosb benodedig o dan adran 13 i weithdrefn uwchgadarnhaol a nodi'r weithdrefn sydd i'w dilyn. Ni allaf gefnogi'r gwelliannau hyn a gofynnaf i'r Aelodau eu gwrthod. Wrth ddefnyddio'r pwerau hyn i wneud rheoliadau, byddwn yn ymgynghori arnynt fel yw'r drefn a'r arfer, naill ai ar sail ymgynghoriad polisi neu ar ddrafft y rheoliadau eu hunain. Mae'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol yn gofyn bod rheoliadau yn cael eu gosod gan bwyllgorau a fyddai hefyd yn craffu arnynt ac yna'r Cynulliad yn eu cymeradwyo. Mae hon yn lefel gymesur o graffu. Ar adegau, mae'n fwy defnyddiol i ymgynghori ar y cynnig polisi i roi prawf ar ragdybiaethau. Efallai na fyddai ymgynghori ar reoliadau drafft yn ffordd briodol i ymgysylltu â rhanddeiliaid megis tenantiaid. Fodd bynnag, mae gwelliannau 48 a 49 yn dileu'r dewis hwn ac yn creu proses hirfaith, gan o bosibl rhoi anogaeth i beidio ag ymgysylltu â datblygu rheoliadau. Yng Nghyfnod 2, fe wnaethom egluro bod y rheoliadau o dan adran 7 yn debygol o gael eu defnyddio i ymdrin â newidiadau mewn arferion yn hytrach nag ailwampio'n llwyr y taliadau a ganiateir. Nifer gymharol fach o daliadau a ganiateir sydd yn y Bil, ac er y gallai'r rhain newid dros y blynyddoedd mae'n anodd gweld sut y gellid ychwanegu atynt mewn unrhyw ffordd arwyddocaol. Rheoliadau o dan adran 13 yw'r mwyaf tebygol o gael eu defnyddio i nodi newidiadau mewn costau byw fel bod y lefel hysbysiadau cosb benodedig yn gymesur â chostau y mae landlordiaid yn eu hysgwyddo. Petai newid mwy sylweddol yn cael ei gynnig, byddai'r dewis ar gyfer craffu manwl gan bwyllgorau'r Cynulliad yn agored o dan y trefniadau cadarnhaol. Bydd y ddwy gyfres o drefniadau'n diogelu'r Bil at y dyfodol. Gallai'r weithdrefn uwchgadarnhaol, olygu y treulir chwe mis yn adolygu cynnydd cymharol gymedrol efallai llai na £100 i lefel hysbysiad cosb benodedig. Nid wyf wedi fy argyhoeddi bod hyn yn gymesur nac yn briodol. Mae gwelliant 50 hefyd wedi'u ddwyn ymlaen, eto o gyfnod 2, gan David Melding i ddiwygio gweithdrefn y Cynulliad fel y dylai rheoliadau i ddiwygio Deddf Hawliau Defnyddwyr 2015 o ran cyhoeddi ffioedd gosod fod yn destun yr weithdrefn gadarnhaol. Ni allaf gefnogi'r gwelliant hwn ac rwy'n annog yr Aelodau i bleidleisio yn ei erbyn ar y sail y byddai'r rheoliadau wedi eu cyfyngu i'r hyn sydd ar wyneb y Bil. Fel y dadleuwyd yng Nghyfnod 2, mae'r pŵer i wneud rheoliadau yn y fan yma yn gyfyngedig iawn, gan ganiatáu ar gyfer yr hyn a ddarperir yn benodol ar ei gyfer yn adran 19 o'r Bil, sef y gallai rheoliadau ddiwygio pennod 3 o Ran 3 o Ddeddf Hawliau Defnyddwyr 2015 i'w gwneud hi'n ofynnol i asiantau gosod tai sicrhau bod unrhyw hysbysebwr ar-lein yn cyhoeddi ffioedd yr asiant ac yn caniatáu i fwy nag un gosb gael ei gosod ar asiantau gosod tai o ran yr un toriad dyletswydd a geir ym mhennod 3. Ni allwn ni wyro oddi wrth y darpariaethau hyn, felly nid wyf yn argyhoeddedig bod angen y weithdrefn gadarnhaol ar gyfer rheoliadau â phwyslais mor gyfyng â'r rhain. Gofynnaf i Aelodau gefnogi gwelliant 35 a gwrthod gwelliannau 48, 49, 50, 51 a 52.