The second point is the repeal of safe harbours. As someone who's spent a bit of time in literal harbours, in a previous life I had before coming to this House, the idea of safe harbours is very attractive, superficially and in the literal sense. The idea of repealing safe harbours is worrisome to a former sailor. But, actually, of course, we're talking in a figurative sense of areas in which those who might seek to exercise intellectual property rights could take refuge from scrutiny under competition law. So the bill is really, I think, taking quite a sophisticated approach. It's a modern approach that says, actually, while it might be counterintuitive, we are enhancing and protecting the idea of competition by allowing those who own intellectual property to have rights to exercise in that space. And the reason that's counterintuitive is because, of course, it would be possible to argue that if there are property rights and intellectual property that are held by one entity, that precludes others from joining in and using and developing those. But, of course, there's incentives and the mechanisms that we want the market to employ, which is to say that there is profit, both in that economic sense but also, again, more generally, to be gained, to be obtained, by entities developing intellectual property. It's a valuable thing. It's worth investing in. It's worth investing time, energy, and capital.