The second point I want to touch on is how this bill clarifies the way that victims of insane offenders should be treated going forward. We've heard about the evidence of Sarah Preece in this, and I cannot stress enough how important her submission was in influencing the way that the committee members thought about this piece of legislation, not only the issue as a whole but how the actual mechanics of this bill should work. Sarah told us in committee how she was failed by her contents insurer, which paid her so little money that she was unable to afford to replace her bloodstained carpet or her dining table that was cracked when her attacker slammed her head against it. That wasn't right in law when it happened, and the insurer misinterpreted their role in providing her with cover. What this bill does is it makes it crystal clear that where offending and violent offending has happened to someone, that they should be covered and that just because their offender lacked the mental capacity to be found guilty in the traditional sense, that compensation that should be owed to the offender through private insurance should not be negated. It doesn't seem like a big change, but it is a very, very significant change for the individuals who have to go through something like this, and I'm very happy that the committee arrived at a situation where we would be addressing that.