The other lesson that we can take from the bill, looking again at the wording of Part 1 in particular, is the perils of passing such legislation, which is technical in its nature as well as being of an electoral nature, under urgency. I refer to the—how would we call that? Well, it's very familiar—very, very familiar—and the reason this is so familiar, some of this wording, is because we have seen it all before. I don't mean in some sort of general way of being able to predict the future or based on past. I mean, literally, we've seen it all before. All these words had come before us relatively recently, and the reason is because, having attempted to legislate these things into the law of the land on the statute book last week but having failed to do so for reasons that have been reasonably well thrashed out but may yet get a bit more airing today, and so it is that we've come back here to have to have another go. It's more particularly the lack of time between the committee of the whole House stage and the third reading of the previous bill that has led us to look down on our respective desks in front of us today and say that the provisions really are pretty well exactly the same as that which the Government had intended before. 