Let's then pass to the detail in the bill—because, of course, as always, the detail matters—and the fact that a particular line in the sand has been drawn at the three-year mark indicates that the compromise that was reached even before tonight's events was one that was political in nature rather than legal or, indeed, logical. The reason I say that is because we heard a number of very compelling submissions about the arbitrary nature of the three-year mark to determine whether someone should be able to vote or not. The argument from the Minister of Justice and others of that perspective was that a person would be able to vote on the basis that they would be affecting the law of the land by electing representatives in the three years before they were released, and therefore when they came out of incarceration, then they would be subject to those laws. Well, that's all very well, except that a prisoner who is incarcerated for longer than three years isn't given by this bill the right to vote in the last three years. So the logic of that is not internally consistent, and that's a challenge to what it is that we're expected to pass, or indeed being asked to pass, tonight by the Minister and the Government, even before we ask ourselves: what is the purpose of having a three-year time frame in the first place?