Yes, I think Joyce Watson makes a number of very important points there, and overlapped with a point I didn't respond to in John Griffiths's submission, actually, which I've just realised, which is the issue about the competence and the building inspectors. So, there is a whole section in the road map around approved inspectors and their competency, and how a joint competent authority might work between the local authority, the inspectors and the construction industry group.

One of the reasons we're responding in May is because we want to have the benefit of the group's response and recommendations before we go forward. We are looking to ensure that people do employ people with the right competencies, and that the building inspectors are enabled to carry out a proper inspection not just of the work but of the workforce, if you like, so that you can't just, you know, get anybody along, pay them a minimum wage and get them to do it, unless they're supervised by a competent qualified person and all of those kinds of things. We are waiting on the group's response to that.

There is an interesting suggestion in the road map around the joint competent authority, which we want to look at very carefully. It does introduce a whole new tier of bureaucracy, I guess, and we will want to see whether that works and whether there are better ways to do it in Wales. But, the principle I completely accept: that there has to be a severing—I think David Melding and Leanne actually mentioned this as well—of the role of the builder, the inspector, the approver and then the inspection. So, in the route-map, there are stop points where an independent assessment can be carried out. So, we do need to look at the system.

I'm also very interested to look at the system by which local authorities are remunerated for building inspection work and whether that represents a conflict of interest, and if it does, what we can do about it, and that's the proposal around the joint competent authority. So, we have much to consider before we come forward with the detailed proposals, which is why we want to take our time in making sure that we get the system that we put in place right, so that it is fit for purpose and that we run some test cases through it to make sure that we haven't got unintended consequences, and so on. Again, it's about proportionality, isn't it, expecting people to invest the right amount in the fire safety of their building, without making it virtually impossible for anybody to be able to comply? So, it is about getting that proportionality right.