Well, as I said, the motion is self-explanatory. There is clearly a requirement to ensure that those in need with respect to public housing are taken care of, and that we must be cautious. They may be a little enthusiastic to get more HAPs on the deck, which is understandable, because the HAP program is an attractive program despite some of its internal weaknesses. Clearly we have to ensure that the
people who cannot afford that, and the balance in terms of how we approach the communities as to what the basic needs are, which may come out of the needs study anyway, be at rest. Thank you.