The Minister raises another example of a point that I made about clause 7. I had not realised that it would apply to clause 13, too. We appear to have yet another clause that says what will happen. We have now been told that we can ignore the provisions under clause 13 if, under clause 24, we think that it is a good idea. I made the point on clause 7 and the Minister said that he would reconsider the matter. Does it not occur to him that the same stricture should apply under clause 13? If it is to be capable of being overruled, ignored or varied, it ought to say ``subject to the terms in clause 24''. We would then know where we stood.