Thank you, Llywydd. I’m grateful to Members who have taken part in the debate around amendment 5. I’m very frustrated, naturally, that this whole issue of equality and equity has been dodged. Let me just reiterate why that causes us real concern on this side of the Chamber. When tenants were consulted on the suspension in those authorities, they took comfort in the thought that the suspension would be temporary, not permanent. Suspending a right is not the same as abolishing that right. That is the difference, and I think it’s only fair that people realise what they're going to vote on. Obviously, this Assembly can take that decision, but my duty is to ensure that this is on the record and everyone clearly understands what they're doing in terms of creating two classes of tenants between now and the eventual abolition of this right.

TPAS Cymru, the tenants' organisation, told the committee that some tenants living in areas where a suspension is in place are under the impression that it would have to be lifted at some point in time, when they could have then exercised their right if they wanted to. They also said, and I quote, when the right to buy was suspended in those areas:

'The abolition discussion wasn’t there then. So...in terms of fairness and consistency across Wales, some consideration should be given to that 12-month period applying equally to tenants.'

I think this answers, for instance, Simon’s point that somehow they've already had this debate. They had a debate about suspension without any right, once that decision was taken, for a grace period in which they could then exercise their embedded rights. So, these statutes are not the same. The Measure is very different from the Bill in front of us.

Ultimately, Llywydd, the purpose of the suspension Measure was to suspend the right to buy for five years, and not to abolish the right completely—simple as that. As stated by Mr Clarke, an adviser to Welsh Tenants, there are tenants who accepted the suspension principle who are now anticipating that, in five years' time, they will have an opportunity to exercise their right to buy their home. Well, of course, they are going to get disabused of that at some point. And I fear, when that happens, we will have many more letters sent to us, on top of the ones we have already received, from tenants who are very unhappy about this different way of treating tenants in different parts of Wales.

Can I just reply to some of the general remarks that were made, because I think some Members have taken the opportunity in the first grouping to look at some more general issues? I’m obviously sorry that Siân Gwenllian and the Plaid group will not be supporting the amendment, but I think they're right to say that the real problem here is a lack of supply. We need to build more homes, and we need to build more social homes in particular. I appreciate what Gareth Bennett said, and that’s helpful. It has certainly been our intention on this side of the Chamber to improve the legislation in front of us. We cannot stop the abolition. I think that's quite clearly going to happen because the principle has already been accepted, and, of course, amendments are not permitted if they wreck the principle of legislation; the Llywydd would not permit that. So, I do believe that all the amendments I am laying this afternoon could be passed by people who firmly believe that abolition is very, very important.

Jenny said that it’s still the case that social homes are haemorrhaging—she used the word 'haemorrhaging’—and that had to be addressed with the supply issue. Well, I think we need to have a sense of magnitude here. There are barely 300 or 400 sales under right to buy and associated rights at the moment each year. We are hoping to build between 4,000 and 5,000 social homes, and I think that, over the next 10 years, we should do even better than that. So, you know, it really is a supply issue, and I think that is really what we should be concentrating on.