One point that I wanted to raise, upon my re-reading of the Hansard from the second reading debate, was an assertion from Opposition members about who was either supportive or not supportive of this piece of legislation. I know the judiciary don't like to be dragged into debates in this House or into politics, but they were, in the second reading debate, from members to my left about whether or not they were supportive of this legislation. Now, I don't think they've made a declaration about whether they're supportive of this legislation, but there was a Court of Appeal ruling in 2020 which made it very clear that the judiciary is more supportive of the use of the types of video evidence that we are looking at in this piece of legislation. In that ruling, the Court of Appeal judges said, "We see considerable merit in pre-recording the evidence of a vulnerable witness before trial. Not only does this provide a vulnerable witness with a more accommodating environment in which to give their evidence; it also provides counsel and the trial judge with an opportunity to take any remedial steps that may be required after the vulnerable witness gives his or her evidence."