If I'm not wrong, they've had to change theirs in terms of the special advocate three times--not just the recent one I mentioned, but also in 1997 and 2003. We've learned from that. I believe we have a special advocate system that is in fact quite different. In their system, their advocate is appointed by the Attorney General. Here we have a roster, and a justice will appoint them. They don't have a roster process in the same way we do. Their special advocate can only cross-examine and give written or oral submissions, but in our case the judge has the authority, if the special advocate here asks for it, to permit them to call in witnesses, to listen to testimony, and to actually cause those people to appear.
I think there are some far-ranging differences. There is greater liberty on behalf of our process, and we've learned, in fact, from some of the changes they were forced to make in the U.K. I believe we still have, with respect to the U.K., a better process.