I see.
I want to get to the rationale, which I think is what we were approaching with Mr. Regan's question, for subclause 16(2). It isn't so much that the government doesn't acknowledge that there can be damages resulting from the loss of power to individuals or businesses; in a sense you've triaged the situation and given priority to those who are defined earlier as being directly, physically impacted by a nuclear accident, as opposed to those who have simply lost business because the power didn't show up.