I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee and giving us the benefit of his advice. I asked five questions. First, I asked why it was decided to use primary legislation in this instance. The Minister said that it was because it would enable us to have a wider debate—I guess—on the subject. That seemed to be the inference of his answer. Secondly, I asked him why the explanatory memorandum was not sent to members of the Committee, and he has generously apologised for that oversight. I think that we have learned a lesson from that oversight and in future it is absolutely necessary that that type of material is made available to members of the Committee. Thirdly, I asked him whether this process was going to become the norm, in terms of the use of primary legislative powers. I am not absolutely sure that I received an answer to that question. Forgive me, but I am going to ask him to return to question three.