In terms of the point around the sexual history, this is just mirroring what's in the UK. The view that actually there is a threshold and it evens up the threshold for sexual history and history with somebody other than the defendant, it's just making that consistent across the two. It is a test of relevance. It is not ruling out, as others have suggested, all evidence. This has been implemented in the UK and they found that some evidence still gets through, of that history. It is critical when one of the key reasons, apart from the awful process, that people don't report it is that they blame themselves—they think that their own experience of drunkenness or whatever meant that it wasn't rape. We have to send the damn clear message that it is, that consent is every time.