Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. You know, at certain points in Stage 3, we get to the heart of the matter, and this legislation, this Bill, is supposed to be about protecting tenants from unlawful payments. The one thing it doesn’t do efficiently is refund the illegal payment, and I just think that anyone watching this would be mystified. At least in England, whatever the deficiencies the Minister may see there, it attempts to do that.

The Minister made reference to my amendment and, you know, implied that it still lacked the power to be enforced. Well, at least it’s on the statute, and you could have brought forward an amendment to ensure that it is strengthened in terms of its enforcement provisions. You have all that power behind you in terms of your legislative capacity and advice, but you’ve chosen not to do it. And I think it is utterly perverse that we will now have a system where tenants have to go through a convoluted legal system that is already part of the problem. They don’t have the confidence or the wherewithal, often, financially to embark on that. Even if they could get advice, they are not necessarily going to be aware of it or feel strong enough to take it on. They may fear the resources that will be against them in terms of the landlord or the agent.

I do thank Jenny Rathbone for what I infer is support, insofar as backbenchers can give it under the whip. I know it’s not easy. But I do think it’s a sad state of affairs that this central defect has not been sorted out by the Government. We needed a quick and efficient method to resolve this. That’s why we brought in fixed penalties, so that the offenders don’t go themselves through a full court procedure, but we accept a very different principle when it comes to the tenants, and, I’m sorry, I think that is perversity gone way too far. It’s dysfunctional.

The second point, on the level of the fixed penalty, setting that at £2,000 instead of £1,000, I do acknowledge that £1,000 is better than £500. It does contain an element of deterrence, because it goes beyond the administrative costs. But, you know, in committee, we heard from reputable landlords and letting agents that they thought that £500, and even £1,000, wasn’t probably the level it should be set at. They want a fair market. They want to be protected themselves from the rogue operators, because the rogue operators undermine the business model of those who are in the market for the best intentions. And they would welcome £2,000, rather than £1,000. I mean, £1,000 is not much of a deterrent, I think, really, for what’s happened here, is it—you know, setting an illegal payment from tenants in vulnerable positions, chasing sometimes scarce housing, and then, you know, the difference in the power relationship, if nothing else. And I just think we need to set a much stronger sign here and now. I realise it can be altered in the future by regulations, but I think it’s for this Assembly to send out a strong signal, and I urge Members, even at this late stage, to back our amendments. They clearly strengthen the Bill, and they’re designed to do that. I think it’s for all parties to sign up to this much-needed reform of the market to make it more fair and efficient. I so move.