So that leads me to being concerned that their risk-averse nature could lead to the point of not taking up the safe harbour because they can't have sufficient confidence in being able to attest that they have the confidence that they can trade out, given those uncertainties. So we could well enact good provisions—good provisions that do provide protection, but which is a protection that won't be taken up in all too many cases. That would absolutely meet the criteria of doing no harm, but we can't guarantee that the measures we're putting in place through the safe harbour will lead to a sizable, a larger scale, material difference. I'm not sure that there is anything that we could have done differently about those provisions, but it is still a worry, because, fundamentally, our objective is to promote that businesses which feasibly could trade out of the difficulties of COVID impacts do so.