You will recall, Presiding Officer, that Carl Sargeant and I often clashed on the right to buy—and, it has to be said, on some other housing matters as well—but on this, we were in agreement. And can I welcome his son, Jack, to the Chamber this afternoon? Your father was held in great affection and respect on this side. He was a truly worthy and powerful opponent. I suppose I ought to offer you a slight apology, because my five hours on the phones—. They were Tory central office phones, Llywydd, before you think you have to send me to the standards committee. Anyway, my five hours on the phones urging people to vote for your opponent met with limited success, although I did find out that the Labour voters in Alyn and Deeside are amongst the most polite people in the electorate I've ever had the honour to converse with.

Despite the fact that I think this Bill will get unanimous support in the Assembly, both at this stage and at future stages, there were some areas, I think, when the committee looked at it, that caused some concern and require some further work or tweaking. I won't repeat the able presentation that the Chair of the committee, David Rees, has just made, but I do hope the Minister is going to listen to what is said in this debate and reflect on some of the reservations you've made in response to the report. Obviously, we welcome where you've indicated you're going to implement recommendations.

As the explanatory memorandum to this Bill states, the purpose of this legislation is, and I quote,

'to implement regulatory reforms removing central and local government controls allowing the ONS to review the classification of RSLs, which are currently determined to be public sector organisations for accounting purposes.'

Whilst it's unarguably in the public interest, given that judgment by the ONS, that we do meet the concerns, we should all recognise that this Bill is a significant act of deregulation within the sector and, consequently, as we identified in the sub-committee, it will require diligent risk management and effective monitoring, so that the interests of lenders and tenants, in particular, are properly protected. I very much welcome what David said about post-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that that will find support in the Commission as well. It may be important for us to take a second look at how this, should it become an Act, has been applied in practice.

I do think we need to state quite frankly that the National Assembly is the legislature here, and the ONS—. Obviously, their views are critical, but I'm slightly nervous when the Welsh Government says, 'Ah, the Bill, as currently presented, has already been passed by the ONS as fit for purpose', and 'Touch it at your peril' is, I think, the subliminal message. I've been quite disappointed, actually, with the committee's exchanges with ONS when we have indicated areas where we thought the Bill could be strengthened and asked whether they would give an opinion on some of these matters and they are reluctant to do so. But I do think they need to reflect on their procedures, and any other bodies in the future that interact with legislatures may bear this in mind, because we do have to take our law making very seriously, and we are the lawmaker in Wales.

That said, the issues that ONS raise are, basically, ones of international accountancy practice, and we cannot just ignore them, and I think that is the overriding judgment. But I do think that we should look at what they've done in England and in Scotland and compare the measures there to what we're proposing. And, in particular, I do favour the stronger voice for tenants that will be embedded in the Scottish legislation.

I don't think we need to say, as they do in Scotland, that it would be necessary for tenants to give their agreement to certain constitutional changes, but I do think it should be on the face of the Bill that tenants should be consulted. It's one thing for the Minister to say, 'Yes, well, we're going to deal with all that in regulations', but, Llywydd, what is more powerful than putting a statement like that on the face of our legislation and getting the vote in this Assembly to do it? It is the gold standard and I do urge the Minister to reflect on that. We have some, I think, room for manoeuvre, and it is our duty to try to improve and strengthen the Bill and, as I said, in particular, in reference to tenants.

I think David made the point about the regulatory framework very ably, and that is certainly something I shall be seeking to amend, if necessary, if the Government does not bring forward amendments of its own to ensure that failure under the framework is regarded as a failure of requirement under enactment. I think that is very, very assuring.

I do urge the Minister to be as flexible as possible. I think we got somewhere this afternoon with her response. It is reassuring that you're looking at the framework, and that is going to be brought up to date. And, of course, it will be working with this Bill to provide a proper regulatory framework, but I still think that there are some things in the interaction that need to be examined very, very carefully.

That said, I see I'm well out of time. I will be—