Yes, I don't disagree, really, David, with anything that you've set out there. We are quite frustrated by the position. The UK Government is currently investigating whether to bring into force something called section 38 of the Building Act 1984, which is a part of the Building Act that addresses the civil liability and who is responsible for breaches of regulatory duty and so on. So, that consultation is live. We don't have the power to do it here, as I understand it, although if that's incorrect I'll write to say, but my understanding is we don't.

If they do bring that into force, it gives individuals the right to legal recourse where they suffer damage, which includes personal injury, death and so on, as a result of a breach of the duty imposed by building regulations. But, at the moment—. I've got pages and pages here of the complexity of the law relating to who is responsible if buildings had passed a regulatory regime at one point then fail it subsequently, and it's immensely complex. Andrew R.T. Davies asked a question in the business statement earlier about this, and I'm afraid the answer is that it's immensely complicated. It depends at what point they were inspected, by whom, what the relationship was, what your insurance position is and whether you're a leaseholder. It's really complicated and very individualised.

What is clear, though, is that the current regime does not place the onus on the building inspector. All they're doing is a spot check, so something could have gone wrong the day before that's now covered up or go wrong the day afterwards, so it's a system based on spot checking—it is not a guarantee that your building is compliant. Indeed, as you've rightly pointed out, we are now aware that many buildings that did pass those tests on a spot-check basis are not compliant, so it is a real problem.

We are in conversation—in particular, you mentioned Celestia. Officials are engaged in conversations with the fire authorities—the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Welsh Government officials have been meeting with Celestia's managing agents and Cardiff council, as well as fire and rescue, to understand the complex issues that are problematic there. I agree with you that leaseholders should not be expected to pay these, but, at the moment, it is not clear, unless they have a valid claim, who would pay unless the UK Government stumps up some cash, which I join you in calling for them to do.

In terms of the ACM cladding issues, those are slightly more complex. So, we had 111 high-rise buildings identified in Wales and 12 high-rise private residential buildings with ACM cladding that failed the initial screening tests, all of which were in Cardiff. All 12 buildings have either removed the cladding or have a remediation system in place. So, that particular problem is not a problem in Wales, although it continues to be a problem elsewhere. For social homes, we provided the funding to remedy the situation. So, in Wales that specific problem doesn't exist, although we continue to test other types of cladding. Sometimes it's not the cladding, it's the way it was put on, as you say, and the workmanship and so on, so these are very complex things.

In terms of the timing, I totally accept what you're saying. It would be lovely to get it done, but the other thing to do is to get it right. And so, these are really complex, and the more we go into them, the more differing professional views there are. So, I want to get it right. I hope the White Paper will enable us to make those policy choices, and then assuming they're not controversial, maybe we will be able to get that legislation through. I share your wish to do that, but we'll have to see what the White Paper produces.