The Minister made a comment about that and in regards to, actually, the SOP that David Seymour put forward—SOP 406. He made this comment, and, as he said, it's an old adage: "The absence of evidence does not mean there's the evidence in that absence". I want to tell the Minister: when he first commissioned the Law Commission, there were no conditions to talk about in a regulatory impact report as to the reasons why we were amending or changing the law—there was an absence of that. Instead, what did we do? It was already predetermined politically that this was going to happen. So I have to say to the Minister: you cannot turn around and say there's a lack of evidence, when there was no evidence right at the start as to reasons why we should change this. 