I think the short answer to your question is absolutely. We've already experienced it once with the inability to put to sea a ship that can support our navy. Whether it is in deferred maintenance or in deferred capital, I take your point that we absolutely want to make certain that we don't defer maintenance and that we don't take risks with our operational capability into the future, particularly with those things that we are fundamentally relying upon.
I take your point as well about infrastructure. Infrastructure can sometimes fuel the challenges of deferred investment. I don't know what the number is, but there is a sort of old standard for what you need to reinvest in recapitalizing your infrastructure, and we have an ambition to try to achieve it.
Some good things have been done about this. We have put under the stewardship of our assistant deputy minister for infrastructure and environment the management of our estate. I think this will go a long way toward making it more efficient and effective and keeping the funds flowing.
As it relates to capability by capability, platform by platform, I concur: we need to be very cautious when we defer investment in required maintenance, so as to not lose capability. Generally speaking, we do not. My experience has been, certainly since I've been CDS, that it's on our mind, and we seek to invest appropriately to ensure that we don't lose the capabilities we have.