Good. Well, I'm grateful for that reply, which I regard as very positive. In the event that the Cabinet Secretary decides not to change the law in this respect, will she consider an alternative proposition, which also comes from the BVA? They say that they recognise that, whilst pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, should non-stun slaughter continue to be permitted, post-cut stunning offers a valid means of reducing the suffering of animals at slaughter. And post-cut stunning, I think, would meet most of the objections from religious groups.