Thank you very much, Llywydd. I would again like to thank the Chairs and members of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, and the Finance Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the Bill throughout Stage 1 and Stage 2. I would also like to thank the stakeholders who provided written and oral evidence and Assembly Members for their support for the Bill so far in its passage through the Assembly.

The Government’s commitment to tenants at the heart of regulation has been made absolutely clear throughout the scrutiny process. I hope it's clear that this Bill does nothing to change this, nor the regulatory expectation that registered social landlords consult with tenants and listen to their views. This is a fundamental requirement. RSLs are required to demonstrate that tenants are involved in shaping services and decisions and that services are high quality and improving. This is set out in performance standard 2 issued under section 33A of the Housing Act 1996. And, to confirm what I have said previously, we will be updating and issuing statutory guidance under section 33B of the housing Act, which will set out regulatory expectations on RSLs on various matters, including consultation.

However, having listened carefully to the debates, I committed to bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 to set out provisions on tenant consultation on the face of the Bill. My amendment does exactly this. It sets out provisions to require consultation with tenants when RSLs are considering certain constitutional changes such as voluntary mergers or amalgamations. I do not, however, propose to impose a duty on RSLs to consult in circumstances where I think that any such duty is not appropriate and would present additional risk to tenants and the RSL, for example when an RSL is in financial stress. This is because structural change, as caught by amendments 3 and 4, can be a means of dealing with RSLs in financial stress or facing potential insolvency. In these circumstances, the RSL and the regulator must be able to take very urgent, tailored action to intervene to protect tenants. Even where voluntary arrangements are put in place to deal with financial stress, often there will be a number of factors outside an RSL’s control—creditors, timescales and so on—that will have an influence on the proposals made by an RSL and may limit the ability of an RSL to carry out an effective and legally compliant consultation.

I am not, whatever the circumstances, saying that tenants should be left in the dark when such changes are being considered. I have made it clear, and I don’t think anyone disagrees, that there must be appropriate communication with tenants when these proposals are being considered and those communication arrangements will be subject to regulatory oversight. But communication is different to formal consultation. A duty to consult has a particular well-understood meaning in law.

My amendment also doesn't include a requirement for consultation where an RSL proposes to change from a registered society to a company or vice versa. In these circumstances, it will not result in a change of landlord for the tenant, only in a change of the legal form of the landlord. Amendment 1A, on the other hand, would have the effect of placing a duty to carry out consultation when an RSL proposes to change from a society to a company. I recognise that there may be concerns that a change from a society to a company may signal a change of ethos for an RSL, but there are safeguards against this. All RSL’s registered in Wales, including those that are companies, must be not-for-profit and their purposes must include the provision, construction, improvement or management of social housing. Diversification is monitored closely, as is the establishment of non-registered subsidiaries. In fact, progressing the core purpose of the business is central to performance standard 1 and subject to ongoing regulatory oversight.

My amendment has been developed to address issues discussed during the scrutiny process, taking into account the knowledge and experience of the RSL sector in Wales and the co-regulation approach that we take here in Wales. It's the most appropriate way of ensuring tenant consultation when there are planned changes, whilst allowing flexibility to respond to urgent situations.

David Melding referenced TPAS Cymru, the tenant representative organisation, when speaking to his amendment at Stage 2. As you might expect, officials have discussed my amendment with TPAS Cymru, who, whilst welcoming the proposal to set out provisions for consultation on the face of the Bill, also recognise that this may not always be practical in cases where RSLs are in financial stress or facing insolvency. We welcome the briefing provided to the Assembly from Community Housing Cymru, which supports my amendment, recognising that it deals with the concerns raised at Stage 2, ensuring that tenants are at the heart of decisions taken about the future of their landlord and the services it provides. Therefore, amendments 1A, 3 and 4 are unnecessary. My amendment therefore provides an appropriate requirement for consultation but without the operational difficulties that would arise if amendments 3 and 4 are passed.

Amendments 3 and 4 as drafted effectively place a duty for RSLs to consult before a wide range of constitutional changes, including those that may be driven by the need for an RSL to take steps to make arrangements with their creditors, or prior to taking certain steps relating to insolvency, which, as I have said, is not practical. The issue of the need to be able to step in and take action where an RSL's viability is in jeopardy is also recognised in Scotland, where the regulator can, for example, set aside the requirement for RSLs to consult tenants before it can became a subsidiary of another body where becoming a subsidiary can be one of the ways of avoiding insolvency.

Additionally, amendments 3 and 4 seek to invalidate certain resolutions. They may have unforeseen consequences—for example, creating uncertainty as to whether the Financial Conduct Authority or the Registrar of Companies can register those resolutions, or whether they must consider whether or not an RSL has carried out a lawful consultation. I therefore recommend that Members support amendment 1 and reject amendments 1A, 3 and 4 for the reasons I have outlined.