Speaker, well, supposedly this living-out allowance is something that was negotiated by workers themselves through their unions. The reality is that it appears appealing to ordinary workers because R1 800 seems like quite a lot of money, but that is precisely what is driving the members into informal settlements. It is, however, a perverse argument in the sense that the single-sex compounds are not desirable themselves.
We would, in fact, argue that mining companies should provide proper single quarters and apartments for their workforce, and not just these spartan single-sex compounds. Relatively speaking, the single-sex compounds are better than the informal settlements. So, in a sense, therein lies the perversity of this issue of the living-out allowance.
What we are saying is that the mining companies should rather provide the miners with decent houses and safe transport to travel to their real homes than providing or giving them living-out allowances. That would address most of the challenges which arise from the poorly serviced informal settlements. And, of course, as you have said, the consequence of establishing secondary homes would also be addressed in the process. Thank you.