Other points that were raised before us at the select committee were the deployments that were recognised by allied nations' militaries but not by our own subsequently in relation to veteran definition; also illness, injury, and other conditions as a result of service that were not incurred as a single incident that could be described as an accident or indeed in a qualifying operational service context. Other distinctions such as that between the Merchant Navy during World War II and the navy proper, as it might be regarded, but I don't wish to make that distinction in any disrespectful way—and I acknowledge the case of Mr "J.S.", Juliet Sierra. I haven't been authorised to provide his full name. And so too the case of those who have signed on the dotted line, have attested their willingness to serve our country, and indeed the fact that they have served the country, albeit not necessarily in an operational context. And in that regard, I wish to acknowledge Mr "F.L.", Foxtrot Lima, for 52 years' worth of service in the Royal New Zealand Navy, notwithstanding that he does not qualify for veterans' support in the sense that that is available under legislation at the moment. And of course, there is the vexed question of medallic recognition. The overall theme of these categories of feedback would be the desire for consistency and a rational treatment of those who have served this country and therefore those whom this country must now serve. 