Okay, and that I think was the intent. You don't have to answer. I thank you, and a nod of the head is fine. That was the intent of the bill. There is some interpretation, as with any legal document. I'm not criticizing. There's always interpretation. That's why there are two sets of lawyers in every court case, and a judge, and we're the judge today.
In here, there's no amendment to clause 6, which requires the royal recommendation. Is that correct? Have you seen anything to do with the royal recommendation?