Thank you. Chair.
There are several elements in that.
Perhaps first to your question of whether it is robust enough, I'd make several points. One is that we have not audited the action plan. Just to put the caveat right up front, we haven't had a chance to sort of look behind the kind of progress that the agency is claiming in order to see what's actually been done.
The second thing I would say is that it is a very complicated business. When I see the action plan, what I see is some action on many different fronts, some of which is behind the scenes. Advisers on surveillance probably play quite an important role in terms of the governance and making sure that information is provided. I wouldn't discount the importance of the individual elements, but I would return to something I said in my opening statement. I think much of the real test of an action plan is its ability and the agency's ability to show concrete results.
I see as I review the action plan that they've made a number of improvements on the systems. I think ultimately the question, then, is that perhaps it is only reasonable to be looking for concrete results through a number of years. You don't expect a great deal of results in the very short term, but I think those are really where the key questions lie.