That is the point that I am making. I am saying that one way in which this could have been dealt with satisfactorily was to leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and say that the judge should do whatever was reasonable. But, having put them in, any judge will read them and he will think that they mean something. Paragraphs (a) to (d) will become first-class reasons to which the judge will initially devote his mind. He will say to himself, "Parliament has regarded these questions as of overriding importance, and all other questions which Parliament has not put in I may consider, but they are of secondary importance, and they are secondary reasons". We are therefore in the difficulty that it is no good saying, "The judge can consider everything. We do not need to add this at all. It does not matter whether we put it in or not". We have put words in, and the judge will read what is there, and say, "These are important and anything else is less important".
It is on that basis that I suggest that it is just as important to see whether the ex-tenant has unreasonably refused not only the offer of the tenancy of the premises he occupies or part of those premises but also of any other suitable accommodation.