Where, if it's determined under this legislation that a person should be denied access to the court, then under this legislation, we have in the following clause a requirement that the court security officer—not a duty lawyer, not a judge, not a registrar—should give, effectively, legal advice to the person so removed or so denied. We hear that they "must at the same time tell the person the gist of clause 5.", and I presume that means something like the nature and meaning of effect. I presume that the plain language mafia have got to this one, to the extent that statutes and any other Government documentation is more easily understood in plain language, that's all well and good. But the fundamental point is, and the substantive point remains, that to ask court security officers to tell people why they are being denied access to courtrooms in which they might have a legitimate interest in proceedings seems to me not good enough, and I want to know from the Minister—and this is why I'm asking him again—whether he thinks it's good enough.