On a similar but slightly different note, we've seen that the orders that the Government first saw fit to promulgate—and the Regulations Review Committee agreed, albeit in a narrow way, considering, as they do, orders' appropriateness—were appropriate at the time but are no longer appropriate according to the court. And it struck me as interesting that it would be possible to say quite rightly that an order is appropriate at one moment but later, when facts change—not the order itself; but when facts change, and in this case the transmissibility of COVID, being the Omicron variant as opposed to the Delta one—that actually changes the suitability of the order. In judicial review terms, that might speak to the reasonableness of the decision maker's judgment—with a lower-case "j", not to be confused with a court's judgment—and in Regulations Review Committee terms, that's, of course, going to the degree to which human rights are impacted or the extent to which the order might be said to be consistent with the objects and intentions of the Act, and so forth.