We've also seen the discussion about advice around harm reduction. It's interesting that the first reading of the bill, or the bill as introduced to the House originally, didn't make mandatory the giving of advice about harm reduction by those who were doing the checking. If this is the whole reasoning behind the bill and behind the efforts more generally of the Government to reduce harm, it seems extraordinary that it's an afterthought having to be added by a select committee that advice about the harmful nature of these drugs and their additions must be provided by those who are conducting the checking. So I'm just surprised that the good intentions were not backed in the first place either at the first reading or, indeed, in the predecessor version of the bill—the temporary one that expires after 12 months—to actually require that information on harm reduction advice be accurate and appropriate or, indeed, provided at all.