Thank you once again, Llywydd. The three amendments in this third group, namely amendments 6, 11 and 12, ensure that a failure to comply with the regulatory framework and the associated performance standards is explicitly recognised on the face of the Bill as a failure to comply with a requirement imposed under an enactment. Again, this amendment arises from a recommendation of the sub-committee. Ultimately, Llywydd, this is an area of deregulation, as I've repeatedly emphasised, and will require careful risk management. The protections that are afforded by the revised regulatory framework would became more important in terms of regulating RSLs when the legislative changes that are proposed come into force—and they will come into force, because they have all-party support. So, we really must look at the regulatory framework and the way it is going to work, because of the added weight that it will carry. 

At Stage 2, the Minister rejected these amendments on the basis that, quote:

'If we were to include a statement in the Bill that standards issued under section 33A are requirements imposed under an enactment, there is a risk that this could cast doubt on the interpretation of other requirements imposed by or under enactments that made no similar statement.'

However, these amendments were drafted so that the regulatory framework would only be included in the definition of 'enactment' for the purpose of determining whether an RSL had failed to comply with an enactment in the relevant Schedule or sections of the Housing Act 1996. The framework would therefore not be included in the definition of 'enactment' when used elsewhere in the Act. So, it's quite focused. If the Welsh Government wanted to rely on a breach of the framework rather than the performance standards to, say, appoint an officer or manager, then this amendment would assist them in doing so.

Llywydd, the positive consequence of this amendment is the increase in confidence for financial lenders. UK Finance emphasised this point in their evidence, when they stated, and I quote:

'we expect funders could take comfort from the wide definition of failure proposed in the legislation...which we take as including a failure in relation to the regulatory framework. For absolute clarity, however, we suggest that consideration be given to ensuring in the legislation that the “failure to comply with a requirement imposed by or under an enactment” is clearly defined as including a failure in relation to the regulatory framework.'

So this, Llywydd, is exactly what the amendment seeks to do. With such high levels of uncertainty surrounding deregulation, I think we can at least, by adding a duty to comply to this Bill, give lenders the confidence they need to help finance the important work that this sector does, especially if they are somewhat distant investors and not fully familiar with the operation of our law. They would get clarity, and those advising them would be confident to give that. So, I move the amendment.