On the 'in principle' point, I made the point earlier, we are not saying, 'Thanks very much; we kind of agree with you, but we're going to do it a different way.' What we are saying is that we accept all of the recommendations and we are working through a detailed plan to come back—I'm very happy to keep Members updated with that—on each one to make sure that we know exactly what we're going to do in order to implement each one, and we are not yet in a position to be able to say that.

As I said, I'm happy to share what we've got by way of a project plan at the moment. It has some detail in it; there's not as much detail in it as I would like. And then as that project plan is developed, I'm more than happy to place it in the Library on a regular basis and let Members know that I've done that so that people can follow it through. I am proposing to come back with an oral statement around October to put more flesh on this, and I hope then to be able to say something more about the secondary legislation that we're able to do, what the regulations might look like, and what the reissued guidance might look like. So, I absolutely propose to keep Members completely up-to-date.

We are looking to see what loan finance can be made available in certain sectors, because there is an issue about retrofit—how can we afford the retrofit? And I have to say, it's not just for sprinklers—there's a whole series of other things around fire doors and non-aluminium composite material cladding and all kinds of other stuff that need to be retrofitted that we need to find solutions to. So, there are some really complex things in here. There's the immediate issue of ACM cladding, which we've addressed and is sorted out, but there are other areas where there are complex issues around the ability of fire doors to actually hold back fire, the safety involved in that and so on, which we need to work through. We need to have proper proposals for what we can do with that.

And as I said in response to John Griffiths, there are some complex arrangements around the regulation of this. Who can act? Who will the duty holders be? What will that duty look like that we need to put in place before we can legislate? These things are very complicated. The road map works, but there are several decision points along it that we need to work through. And each time we make one of those decisions, it ripples across some of the rest of it, so we have to just make sure we don't have unintended consequences as we go across.

So, for example, if we're to say that building control are the regulator in the local authority, are we to take away their ability to sell building control out and have a revenue stream from that? If we are to do that, then how are they to fund the building control regulation services? So, there are some real issues here in making what would appear to be a straightforward decision but actually then has all kinds of ramifications around it.