So, just by way of example, briefly, there was in one of the orders that we are considering today—one of those presented in mid-April, essentially—a provision whereby those who were staying at a managed isolation and quarantine facility (MIQF)—as defined: one of those facilities—would be able to stay there longer, and I say "able" deliberately because it would need their consent to be isolating longer in an MIQF than would otherwise be the case. Previously, the committee had advised the Government that we thought that someone who was is in that situation shouldn't be penalised in terms of their rights and liberties, relative to someone who was able to self-isolate at home. So in a situation where a person doesn't have adequate facilities to self-isolate at home safely and consents to be in the MIQF instead, then they are able to do so. So we thought that that probably reflected the policy intent of the Government, and, of course, we consider the way that regulations are made to reflect the policy intent rather than interrogating that policy intent ourselves. So we thought that that was a helpful interplay between the committee and the Government, as such. 