The reason that these are important is because the offence that a person would be charged with and tried upon is the question of whether he or she or they had a reasonable belief that they had consent to a particular sexual activity. No one in this House, I'm sure—and very few people in the country overall, thank goodness—would argue that consent should not be required on every single occasion. However, it's important to note that it may be relevant to a person reasonably believing that they had consent to a particular activity that that particular activity had taken place a number of times between them on previous occasions. That need not be determinative, of course, of whether consent was given on that final occasion upon which the trial is being held, but it should at least be considered potentially relevant, and there should not be presumption that it would not be relevant. In other words, again quoting Marie Dyhrberg QC, "consent to sexual intimacy must be given every time, which no-one disputes, but then [it] stretches logic to say [that] the jury cannot hear about intimate encounters the same couple had previously." Regrettably, that's what the bill does, among other things. We will support it if these two changes, as expressed in a couple of SOPs, will be supported at the committee of the whole House stage.