As we look towards those sorts of discussions, we need to think about the ways in which this bill actually makes some significant changes to the adversarial system. The first way in which it does this is by creating this thing called the "proven but insane" verdict. Verdicts in this country are "guilty" or "not guilty". Not guilty does not mean innocent; not guilty means that the right level of evidence wasn't there. What we've done here is to create a third verdict. We are almost moving in the direction of countries like Scotland or some of the inquisitorial countries, which are much more interested in what was actually found. So in Scotland, for example, you have "proven", you have "not proven", and you have "innocent". So you have "definitely guilty", "dunno but not up to the threshold", and "definitely innocent" verdicts. In creating this new verdict, we are doing something profound. We need to recognise that.