We now move on to group 8, which is regulation-making powers, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.

Amendment 35 (Julie James) moved.

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.

I hope the Assembly will indulge me now as a former Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I do think this is a very important part of the legislation, and when it comes to regulation-making powers, it's natural that other Members perhaps glass over a bit. But this really matters. The way this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will function and will be adapted is pretty much going to be determined by the type of regulation procedures we have. My amendments in this group, amendments 48, 49, 52, 51 and 50, all stem from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report for this Bill and provide that regulations made under section 7 and section 13 of the Bill are subject to the superaffirmative procedure.

Section 7, firstly, provides Welsh Ministers with the power to use the regulations to amend the list of permitted payments. The power is a Henry VIII power, as it will enable section 1 to be amended by subordinate legislation. The objective behind the regulation-making powers is to enable regulations to reflect any unforeseen changes in landlord behaviour and practice, and the Welsh Ministers are not permitted to remove the payments of rent from the categories of permitted payment. So, the established practice has been to seek the use of affirmative procedure for any subordinate legislation that would change primary legislation, and, for that reason, the CLAC committee welcomed that the Minister has, from the outset, drafted the Bill so that the affirmative procedure will be used for regulations made under section 7. So, I do acknowledge the strength of the drafting in that respect.

However, the committee also agreed that these regulations, which should enable the list of permitted payments to be altered—or would enable them to be altered—would benefit from the additional security that the superaffirmative procedure would allow: so, from affirmative to superaffirmative in this respect. Given that the Minister has committed to full engagement with stakeholders, I do not believe that placing this commitment in statute through a superaffirmative procedure would be onerous. This view is also influenced by the Minister's reliance, and, indeed, the Welsh Government's wider reliance, on the basic 'consult where appropriate' approach, but this approach lacks transparency—it's up to the Minister; we're not setting the terms—and may not instil confidence in those who will be affected by the changes that can be made through regulations. So, the power to amend the definition of a 'permitted payment' could alter the effect of the overall aim of the Bill as currently drafted or, by shortening the list of permitted payments, widen the number of criminal offences created by the Bill—very significant things.

Key stakeholders and relevant Assembly committees should have the opportunity to comment on draft regulations that would change a significant element of the legislation. The CLAC committee—. And I believe the regulations should be made via superaffirmative procedure—so, I agree with CLAC committee on that—which requires the Welsh Government to consult the stakeholders in advance of laying the regulations before the National Assembly. The period of consultation would also provide time for the relevant Assembly committees to consider the regulations in draft form. So, it significantly strengthens an affirmative procedure by requiring that level of consultation on the draft. So, I think it's very significant.

Section 13, on the other hand, enables an authorised officer of a local housing authority to give an individual a fixed-penalty notice if that officer believes the individual has committed an offence under sections 2 or 3 of the Bill. The amount of fixed penalty is, as of Stage 2, £1,000. Section 13 subsection 3 provides the Welsh Ministers with a power to use regulations to amend the level of fixed-penalty notice, and this power is a Henry VIII power, as it will enable section 13 to be amended by subordinate legislation. And, as in section 7, the CLAC committee—and, again, I agree with them—believe that section 13 regulations should be made under the superaffirmative procedure, which ensures key stakeholders will be consulted before the amount of the fixed penalty is changed. They consistently argue this when you impose a penalty and then change that penalty significantly. So, my amendment ensures that any regulations made under Schedule 1 paragraph 2(4) of the Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure.

In essence, I think these are important changes, potentially, to what is currently on the face of the legislation and requires wide consultation both with stakeholders and with the relevant committees. So, if a future Government wanted to increase the fixed penalty from £1,000 to £5,000, for instance, that, clearly, would be of huge significance, and to consult with letting agents and landlords on what they thought about that and, indeed, what tenants thought about it, would be key to ensuring that such a change—a dramatic change, really, in practice—was fully tested. As I said in response to the Minister's rebuttal to this point in Stage 2, when a Government Minister says—and, Members, wake up to this—'We do not believe that x, y and z would be a good use of your scrutiny time'—so, listen to the Government and be dictated to by the Government as to what scrutiny the legislature requires—you need to run a mile from the Government's advice. It is not impartial. I think it's fair for us to decide. If we want to invest that time in the scrutiny process, we should decide. And, as I said, when it comes to the level of fines, that is very, very significant.

This is not something that I'm suggesting casually; I've referred to the CLAC report throughout, which is itself highly selective, and, indeed, we do praise the practice where that's applied as well. The Government has listened and adopted it in many places, the affirmative procedure, but there are occasions when superaffirmative, which allows much fuller consultation—and I have to say, somehow, the Government is immediately disabled for consulting with tenants because it needs to use a superaffirmative procedure, whereas, if it's a private Government procedure that it determines, it's somehow magically enabled to consult with all the tenants at once, but, as soon as that's a public, statutory commitment, somehow it's compromised. Frankly, I don't think it's a very worthy argument in what has so far been a very good Stage 3 process.

Minister to reply to the debate.

Whilst I need to say that, obviously, I recognise the strength of the arguments made by David Melding and his constant championing of the scrutiny role of the Assembly in terms of the enhanced level of scrutiny for these particular regulations, as I set out in my introduction speech, because of the narrow nature of the regulation-making power, amending the permitted payments and fixed-penalty notices only, we consider that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for both, and, on that basis, I do hope Members will reject amendments 48 to 52, but support the technical changes we intend to make through amendment 35.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 35 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Minister, amendment 36.

Amendment 36 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 36 be agreed to. Any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 36 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Minister, amendment 37.

Amendment 37 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 37 is therefore agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Leanne Wood, amendment 65.

Amendment 65 (Leanne Wood) moved.

Moved.

The question is amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 65. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 65 is not agreed.

Amendment 65: For: 9, Against: 39, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Leanne Wood, amendment 66.

Amendment 66 (Leanne Wood) moved.

Moved.

Moved. The question is amendment 66 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 66. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 66 is not agreed.

Amendment 66: For: 9, Against: 39, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Minister, amendment 38.

Amendment 38 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 38 is agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Leanne Wood, amendment 67.

Amendment 67 (Leanne Wood) moved.

Moved.

The question is amendment 67 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 67. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 67 is not agreed.

Amendment 67: For: 9, Against: 39, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Minister, amendment 39.

Amendment 39 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 39 be agreed. Any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 39 is agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Minister, amendment 40.

Amendment 40 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 40 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Minister, amendment 41.

Amendment 41 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 41 is agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Minister, 42.

Amendment 42 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is amendment 42 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 42 is agreed to.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.