The question that was passed over was on the policy initiative, so again, it's the exclusivity. I'm getting to this point. I understand now that we've had a ruling and the bill is seen to be an exclusivity liability bill, but I don't understand just in a common sense kind of way. If somebody sells a faulty part to a nuclear operator, and that causes an accident, the nuclear operator is not able to seek compensation or damages from the supplier. It seems counterintuitive.
On November 23rd, 2009. See this statement in context.