I’m grateful to you for taking an intervention, Cabinet Secretary. You said that the stock had been lost. As David, who introduced the debate, said, that was a flaw of the scheme that came in—that the money was not used to replace it. Why do you, therefore, acknowledging that there was that deficit in the original scheme, not just make the scheme more adaptable to what is required in the twenty-first century and actually allow receipts to be used to build more homes, rather than outlawing the scheme—using the law to outlaw something like this?