When we took evidence, and the Minister's already referred to this, we did have I think strong support from TPAS Cymru, the tenant organisation. I think that was very welcome in developing the thoughts of the sub-committee that looked at this and provided their report. I've not heard anything that dissuades me that those concerns were, in any way, inappropriate, and TPAS Cymru did frame their views by emphasising that the actual legislation was very important and, whatever happened, it shouldn't prevent the legislation reaching the statute book. Again, that's the view that we all have.

So, it is all a matter of balance, and I think that we've struck the right one. We need greater emphasis on the inclusion of tenants in the big decisions that happen around them. Effectively, these are their lives and homes, and I don't think it's too extravagant to expect RSLs at least to invite them to offer their views in a consultation.

For group 1, now, the Government, as I said, has recognised the issue, and has come up with its proposals, but I've already made it quite clear that I think the Government's response is a lot vaguer than mine. I think clarity in legislation is to be welcomed. So, I would say, whilst I welcome what the Government has done, I still think their approach is tepid and I don't think that's good enough in terms of protecting tenants. The wording of the Government's amendment dictates that

'a society must also provide the Welsh Ministers with a statement about the consultation carried out by the society with its tenants before passing the resolution to which the notification relates.'

Again, I don't think that's as strong as we should be aiming for. It is a little ambiguous and, while not perfunctory, I do feel that it does not have the rigour of amendments 3 and 4, which I'm moving today, to give Welsh Ministers the flexibility to determine the method and the time frame of the consultation via regulations over which we would have some say. But that would be a much, much firmer position.

So, if I can just turn to the point, again, that the Minister referred to—that an amendment is down in the name of Nick Ramsay, namely amendment 1A, and I've tabled this as a sort of insurance policy, I suppose, in the case of the Government's amendment 1 passing. It is our opinion that the consultation exclusion for circumstances set out in point (2B) that the Government is pursuing, and that's namely an event of a conversion from a society into a company, usually under financial duress—we believe that exclusion is not warranted.

Now, we've heard a lot from the Minister that there are cases when the financial skids are on and you've got to move quickly, otherwise the whole thing collapses. Well, let me just say that action in this area is still regulated by the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, and for a society to be able to convert into a company, there is a requirement, which cannot be avoided, on the society to at first undertake a ballot of the society's membership. This ballot has some stringent conditions attached to it, such as the requirement for there to be 50 per cent of the membership present and for at least 75 per cent of those to vote for conversion. Now, in comparison to other situations where membership ballots are required, I'm sure you would agree that those conditions are highly stringent. Whilst the Welsh Government will argue that conversion isn't a significant change, I'd simply disagree. The Government's view is that it wouldn't really be of concern to them because their landlord doesn't change, it's just the nature of the constitution of the landlord. Well, you know, the rules behind the procedure for the co-op Act are highly significant and rigorous. If that change requires that level of endorsement by the members, why do the tenants get no say whatsoever? During the time that the stipulations of the co-operative Act have to be met, there's plenty of time for a consultation to take place. I think it may be reasonable that that is shaped by the circumstances, and so the Government could set out how that should then apply.

So, I think we should not be fooled that sometimes, even under financial duress, very significant changes could occur to the structure of what was a housing association. And under those circumstances of deregulation and change, a high level of protection of tenants should be required, and at least some consultation. So, should the Assembly decide to approve the Government's amendment 1 over our amendments 3 and 4, which offer the proper gold-plated protection—should you approve amendment 1, I hope that you will then approve our amendment 1A, which at least ensures that the Government's approach, limited as it is, is not disapplied to those cases of change that relate to a financial situation requiring a society to become a company. So, I so move.