Also, what was quite clear was that where this was done, there were insufficient penalties and offences to deter payers from not complying with the trust requirement, and I'll speak shortly about those new offences, which do provide something of a disincentive. So what the bill does is clarify the retentions as trust money, whether or not the payer complies with the retention regime in the Act. If the payer holds retentions for more than one payee, the retention money held for each of them is subject to a separate trust. So what this also means is that where you get, obviously, several contractors—which is common—all those contractors' money also must be separately identified for each of the payees, as the Act talks about. So a payer must hold retentions in a separate bank account used solely to hold retention money, and this could be retention money for more than one payee. However, the bank accounts cannot be used for any other purpose. Again, I go back to the real problem that this bill seeks to fix, which is to ensure that that money doesn't become working capital or cash flow. 