Now, I understand the Justice Committee recommended that in reaching a verdict, as set out in this bill, the judge is to explain what "not criminally responsible by reason of insanity" means and how that interplays. I'd be interested in the thoughts of the member. I think it's really important because, I'm sure, the courts will look at these debates to understand what that might entail. What would, in particular, the victim want to know about the verdict? What kind of equipment do we want to give the judiciary in terms of the intention of this House when they come to say to a victim, "This person isn't going to jail, isn't going to be punished, and the reason is they don't have the mental capacity to have committed this crime. They are not guilty. They are not offenders. They are not criminally responsible. But that does not diminish the fact that you have suffered sometimes some very grievous, you know, acts at the hands of these people." But I do think, in striking this balance—and I know the member's tried desperately hard to strike the right balance—we've got to be cautious that whilst we can say a verdict which is, you know, "not criminally responsible", we steer away from then saying, "The person who is the accused is an offender.", because the verdict itself declares that they're not.