So if you would clarify your position as to what we should do in this situation for the vast majority of tenants and landlords, whether or not you want them to sort it out between themselves and for them to figure out, given the situation that they may be in, both the landlord and the tenant, what a fair proportion of rent should be, and that it should be flexible in order to account for the situation that both parties are in. In some cases, the landlord may have a fair case that a reduction of 20 percent may be fair; in other cases it may be close to 100 percent that may be fair. You have to have the flexibility there, Mr Bayly, in order to make sure that you can account for those situations. But the situation is that either you let the parties sort this out amicably—and for the small number of contracts that don't have a fair rent reduction clause, this is what this bill does. But it seems on the other side of the House, they want to instead load up the taxpayer for the impost for the inability to access the property. So which one is it? What do you want? Do you want to reduce debt and lower Government spending? Or do you want to load more debt up on taxpayers? The choice is yours.