So the reason it was deleted from SOP 23, as the Minister has just said, was that it was unnecessary. It was unnecessary because it was actually changed before in the bill. What I am not sure that I understand—and the central point that Mr Bayly was making, I think, very much applies in this case—is why the change was made to clauses 17, 20, and, 27, but not clause 40, because the same principle would have applied. Even if clause 40 came in on 1 April, if we had amended the bill to say that it only applied to agreements entered into on or after 1 July, it would have had the same effect. So it does perplex me why we treated three clauses one way and the fourth clause the other. But I now understand that the effect of it is the same: all of the clauses will be amended from 1 July, assuming the Minister is right and we don't accept my SOP. I'm just not sure why we did it that way.