Well, we're not adding people. Let's be very clear, Mr. Cotton: we're adding what is a protocol, a safeguard, an addition, an additional protocol to ensure. And I can understand your point about ENG. To my way of thinking, at worse we would be only looking at a question of redundancy, and only in those two areas.
Again, I point out that we should have uniformity. It's consistent. I almost think, from a parliamentary point of view, it's something we would always look for in terms of application of protocols or application of process: uniformity in testing, consistency in testing, repeatability, reliability. You may suggest it not be there. I see no reason why it ought not to be. It certainly won't have the bureaucratic weight that is being suggested here, and I hope you've not given your consent that that's in fact what is going to happen.