Thank you very much for those questions. I'll start where you finished, in terms of the visibility of the requirement to pay the commission rate that people agree when they enter into their contract. Well, it is within the contract, but this goes back to the kind of issue I was talking about in response to Bethan Sayed, where there is no conveyancing. This is essentially laypeople, in most cases, entering into what is a very serious contract about one of the largest purchases, or the largest purchase, I imagine, that they will make in their lifetime, but they don't have the kind of legal advice that people who are buying a non-park home house would certainly expect to be seeking out. So, there's certainly an issue there. I mean, I've heard of cases, through the consultation period, where people only became aware of the commission rate, actually, when their friends sold their properties. So, this is something that many residents are not aware of.

In terms of why we want to reduce the commission rate, really it's about making and ensuring that park home living does continue to be an attractive choice for people. Again, that's partly about ensuring that we have affordable accommodation for people in what are often expensive rural areas where people who are often retiring into these homes would be priced out of the market. Park homes are often really suitable for people, as they get older as well. It's very rare to find bungalows, for example, on the market. There's a big lack of bungalows within the sector when people are trying to purchase homes, whereas park homes can often be really suitable for people as they become older. So, it's about helping people, really, move in and out of the park home sector, and keeping it a vibrant offer for people in terms of where they would like to live.

Bethan Sayed also mentioned the financial analysis work, as you did. Originally, we had 17 businesses offer to open their books to us, and I think that that is fantastic and it shows how far we've come in terms of the kind of relationship that we have been building up with the sector over many years. In the event, we were able to look at the books of 10, for different reasons—businesses changing hands in some cases prevented us from looking at the books, or the owners being unwell and so on. But having 10 was really good. What I will say, though, is that those 10 weren't necessarily representative of the sector as a whole; they certainly represent the micro and small end of the park home sector, and don't give us the picture, really, of what's happening in those park home sites that are much larger. But what the evidence did suggest strongly was that these smaller sites do rely on their commission fees in order to be sustainable, which is why we've taken such a phased approach over such a long period—five years—in order to give businesses no kind of shock to the system, but the ability to plan over that period.

Some businesses may look to alternative or new sources of income in order to increase the income of the site and may decide not to increase pitch fees, but there is that reassurance there that any pitch fee above the CPI would have to be agreed by taking it to the residential property tribunal. There would be an opportunity there for all of the issues to be considered—the viability and sustainability of the site, the views of and the affordability for tenants and so on—and all of these issues will be taken on a case-by-case basis by the tribunal. So, the tribunal will not make a ruling for Wales, across Wales. It will be certainly on the individual site basis.

I think I've managed to answer all of those questions that were raised.