---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

The Minister should not be so eager to move on all the time. Obviously I have not said this often enough, but I thought that we had finally learned the lesson that moving on is not the way we legislate in this country or in this Parliament. We legislate by careful consideration, scrutiny, debate and amendment. Those are the processes by which we try to make our legislation good and workable, rather than ““moving on””—this pathetic desire that people have to rush through the legislative process because a very small and vocal number of people outside expect legislation to be introduced at their whim. We will decide the pace of legislation and what is proper, because this is Parliament scrutinising legislation, not the Minister getting his way. Of course, I am very happy that the Minister has given his undertaking. All I am saying—it is the reason for this little debate—is that we must make a judgment as to whether we are prepared to accept his undertaking, which he gave in a kind way, or whether it is better for us to seek to include in the Bill provision to reassure not only us but people outside. It is those very people, our constituents, who may be uneasy about the process set out in the Bill. I am in the business of trying to give them a degree of reassurance. If the Minister does not want to give his constituents any reassurance, that is up to him, but I may see things differently.