The final thing that we talked about, as previous speakers have spoken about, was that we did this bill hard, I think it's fair to say. We did not leave a stone unturned in the consideration of it. It may be that there is some bearing on the fact that some of us were in our first bill. This was, in fact, I think, my first bill ever to work on. So we made sure we considered every aspect of this, and that is reflected in the discussion that we had on section 167 in clause 4 of this bill. There was some discussion as to where we should leave the definition of items that are protected property. At the moment, it says, "any item … necessary for the care, support, or independence … to promote the inclusion and participation" of the person—e.g., mobility vehicles. We considered whether that needed to be widened to include technology such as communication devices. We feel, at this point, that that definition is wide enough to enable bailiffs to take proper consideration of the needs of debtors and their dependants. 