The next group of amendments is group 4, and this group relates to the power to appoint officers. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 7, and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. David Melding.

Amendment 7 (David Melding) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. The purpose of group 4's amendments is to ensure that any appointments made under section 6, the removal or appointment of an officer of a registered social landlord, and section 8, the appointment of a manager of a registered social landlord, end when the relevant requirement is complied with, or the relevant failure is remedied. Under these sections, an officer can be appointed to ensure compliance with a requirement imposed by or under an enactment, and a manager can be appointed when the Welsh Ministers are satisfied that the RSL has failed to comply with the requirement imposed by or under an enactment.

During the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's scrutiny—and I should have mentioned earlier that I'm a member of that committee, though I think that fact is fairly well known—we asked the Minister whether consideration had been given to including provisions in sections 6 and 8 of the Bill regarding limiting the time for which an officer or a manager of an RSL are appointed by the Welsh Ministers where there's been a failure to comply with an enactment. We also queried whether it would be clearer to state that any appointments made under sections 6 or 8 of the Bill will end when the relevant requirement is complied with or the relevant failure has been remedied to the satisfaction of Welsh Ministers. In a letter of response to the CLAC report, the Minister argued that this recommendation, and I quote,

'would not allow for a transition period in which the officer would remain in post while...the Welsh Ministers satisfied themselves that the RSL was now capable of operating without the officer’s assistance.'

Additionally, in Stage 2, the Minister argued that this amendment would remove the flexibility to have a transition period in which the officer or the manager would remain in post after the breach had been remedied. The Minister specifically said that, and I quote,

'It's often the case that there is further input required, for example, while Welsh Ministers monitor whether an RSL can sustain its improvement.'

Now, I've got some sympathy with what the Government's trying to do, but I think in terms of clarity, it would be better to have a different approach. Directives would only be issued in rare and challenging circumstances, and so one would presume that Welsh Ministers would want an appointment to stay in place until they were beyond reasonable doubt that the issue has been rectified. So, I don't see why you quite have this need to talk about transition periods. Under this amendment, the appointment would still be at the discretion of the Welsh Ministers, who'd be obliged to end it when the failure was remedied or the requirement was complied with to their satisfaction, and, basically, this is just drafting the law more tightly, in a clearer definition, and it achieves the same intent.

It would require the Welsh Minister to monitor the RSL for a period to ensure that they are satisfied. I agree that things have to be sustained. You can't just say 'Right, you've reached the required standard,' but the bell rings and, therefore, the requirement drops away. It's obviously got to be sustained, and I think that all that can be catered for in our clearer amendment. I so move.

We've taken a decision as a Plaid Cymru group not to support these amendments. We think that, on this occasion, they would impose too much rigidity on the Government and there may be an advantage to allowing flexibility in relation to this particular issue. There are certainly circumstances whereby allowing a person appointed by the Welsh Government to continue in their role would be an advantage to the organisation and tenants of that organisation, once an intervention ends, and I think being too prescriptive may not allow for that particular flexibility. So, in that regard, we will not be supporting the amendments.

I call on the Minister, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I've listened carefully to the comments made by David Melding today and in the Stage 2 committee session, and also the comments made by Bethan Sayed today, and I genuinely believe that we all want the same outcome here, that where an officer or board member or manager is appointed by the Welsh Ministers to ensure that an RSL complies with the requirement imposed by or under an enactment, that appointment is for a reasonable time and doesn't go on indefinitely, but only until it's appropriate, to ensure the RSL has addressed the issue in question and can sustain its compliance. However, the amendments that we have tabled before us aren't necessary to achieve this, and it might be useful if I explain the context in which these powers might be used, as it will only be used in rare circumstances where there are very serious regulatory issues to address. 

The regulation team monitor RSLs' performance through continuous oversight and co-regulation, and it is likely, therefore, regulatory involvement would be considerable before a formal intervention of this significance is required. We updated the regulatory framework last year to include regulatory judgments. The judgments provide the regulator's view of the performance of an RSL, which is publicly available, informing tenants, lenders and other stakeholders about their performance. When the regulator has significant concerns about an association, once the facts have been established, a revised judgment can be published with an outline of the issues in question. This has the effect of putting the board and executive on public notice that they are required to tackle serious issues—what might be called 'special measures' in other fields.

Funders and other stakeholders are immediately alerted, and the board and executive will be publicly accountable for taking action to resolve issues. The framework and judgments therefore provide a robust regulatory environment, driving improvement, which means that situations where it's necessary to use statutory powers are very rare. However, the power to appoint officers and managers is important in ensuring the interests of tenants and the public money invested in social housing are protected, on the very rare occasions that such interventions might be needed. Therefore, these provisions must work effectively in practice.

Concerns have been raised by Mr Melding that the appointment of an officer or manager is currently able to go on indefinitely. [Interruption.] David Melding, excuse me. [Laughter.] This is not the case. Appointments are for such time on such terms as the Welsh Ministers specify. The Welsh Ministers must consider when and how it's appropriate to make an appointment, and they are subject to the public law in taking that action. This means that Welsh Ministers cannot act unreasonably or leave someone in a position where there is no good reason for them to be there. Where an appointment is made, the progress of the situation will be monitored, and the appropriate time to end the appointment will be decided from an informed position. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the existing legislation is effective, and that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that officers or managers appointed by the Welsh Ministers to deal with a specific problem will not stay in post longer than is necessary or appropriate, and for this reason, the amendments in this group are unnecessary. 

In addition, I would also like to draw Members' attention to a couple of practical issues with the amendments. In addition to appointments to ensure compliance with requirements by or under an enactment, the amendments in this group also capture other circumstances where an officer might be appointed, for example in place of an officer removed by Welsh Ministers. Appointments made in these circumstances are not linked to a failure to comply with the requirements imposed by or under an enactment, and therefore the trigger for terminating appointments in the amendments would not work in these types of appointment. The amendments also remove the Welsh Minister's ability to renew appointments, which takes away further flexibility to keep an appointee in post during a transition period.

Finally, I recall at Stage 2 that David Melding raised concerns that the current position may undermine the ONS's concern, or their eagerness to see that there is a clear independence in the governance of RSLs. However, the purpose of this Bill is not to amend more widely the general regulatory functions of Welsh Ministers, but rather to address those elements of control that led to ONS classifying RSLs within the public sector. 

The ONS have reviewed the Bill prior to introduction, and stated that if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, the totality of public sector influence exercised through central Government, local authorities and the existence of nomination agreements would not constitute public sector control. Therefore, not only am I satisfied that these amendments are unnecessary to ensure that appointments made by the Welsh Ministers are handled appropriately, I am also satisfied that the period of appointments has not been raised by ONS during their considerations, and the existing legislative provisions in respect of the period of appointments would not affect the ONS reclassification decision. For these reasons, I would ask that the amendments are not supported.

I call on David Melding to reply to the debate.

I hold to the amendments being clearer and establishing a better policy for the future in terms of when interventions have to be made, and giving too extensive a power to the executive, which isn't defined more tightly, I think, is not best practice. However, as the Minister's put on record her full position in terms of how this would operate, and referred to ONS, and, in particular, as I'm not getting any support from Plaid Cymru, I won't trouble the Assembly by pushing for a vote on group 4, as it clearly would not carry the Assembly.

Therefore, amendment 7 is not being moved. If the Assembly is content with that, amendment 7 and all other amendments in group 4 will not be put to the vote.

Amendment 7 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

Amendments 8, 9 and 10 (David Melding) not moved.

That brings us, therefore, to amendment 11. David Melding needs to move amendment 11 formally.

Amendment 11 (David Melding) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore move to an electronic vote on amendment 11. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 11 is not agreed.

Amendment 11: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 12, David Melding.

Amendment 12 (David Melding) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 12 is not agreed.

Amendment 12: For: 16, Against: 37, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 13.

Amendment 13 (David Melding) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, amendment 13 is not agreed.

Amendment 13: For: 23, Against: 30, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected