That's no problem.
I'm sorry, but this is my error. Just so I can explain the logic here, Mr. Guglielmin's amendment changes the substance substantially at the beginning of the amendment.
Unless Mr. Bardeesy were to give us that exact same language before we even adopted it, rendering his moot, then we would have to go back to him, and it's a little dirty to do it that way.
We're going to come back to you. There appear to be some questions, Mr. Guglielmin, in relation to your amendment, so we're going to deal with that first, and then we can vote on that. That's going to bring us then to a changed amendment, assuming we're supportive, which I think everybody is. Mr. Bardeesy will then have the opportunity to bring forward his new amendment, which will make the change that he suggested, and then we should be ready to go.
I'm sorry that it got a bit messy.
Mr. Guglielmin, did you have anything to add to your amendment?