The starting point is that retrospectivity is a bad thing, and what this bill does is retrospectively interfere in contracts that have been signed by people in the private sector. That is wrong as a matter of principle. It requires a very good justification from the Government before they retrospectively legislate. The reason retrospective lawmaking is bad is because people are entitled to know what the law is at the time that they sign contracts and make decisions on the basis of what the law is at that moment. Obviously, Parliament altering what that law was at that particular time undermines the certainty or undermines the very idea of the rule of law, because if you can't know what the law is at a particular moment, because Parliament might come along in a few years' time and change what the law actually is, how can you have certainty in what you are signing? So of course retrospective law is a bad thing. It is terrible, obviously, in relation to the criminal law. Everyone accepts that you shouldn't retrospectively change criminality; it's not quite as bad, but it's still very bad in relation to commercial contracts, which is exactly what this bill does. 