Fundamentally, too, we have a little bit of a problem that the bill is trying to say this "payment" to only a specified, if not discriminatory group of people is income. So OK, that's fine, but it's not going to be treated as income for tax purposes. Now, I'm not advocating that it should be, but we have this funny contradiction beginning to develop that it is not a benefit, it's not a grant; it's income. Now, normally, income would be taxable, but we're not going to tax it. Now, again, it's one of those strange things which normally a select committee might just tease out, look at the consequences of that, but we haven't had it. Why is that? Why are we rushing it through? 