I do very much agree. We need to look again at the definition of 'affordable', in the light of all of the powers now available to us, and in the light of the need. You're absolutely spot on on the figures, in terms of the social housing that we need, and that's just a catch-up to where we should be. And the conversation I had with Siân Gwenllian around how we define housing need, actually what we're talking about in the figures you've just quoted is just getting people out of temporary accommodation into permanent, secure accommodation. There may well be other categories of need that we currently don't meet at all, but that we would like to meet once we've got the people who really aren't in adequate housing into that kind of housing. So that's why it's a difficult balance to make.

The definition of 'affordable' though is worth exploring, because I don't want to—. Whilst I absolutely agree about houses for social rent, there are other models. There are co-operative and community models of home ownership, which are worth exploring, and which can also be made to be affordable. My own view is that the definition of 'affordable' needs to go beyond the point of sale. So, we have a definition of 'affordable' that includes Help to Buy, for example, and those homes are made more affordable by Government subsidy, so that's fine, but they aren't affordable on into their lifetime, because once they're sold the second time they go into the private sector. So I think there are some nuances that we need to look at, but, definitely, the thing needs a review.