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.