I have just a quick observation. I'm sure there were defensible reasons—we might not agree with them—for the space not being accessible, reasons that relate to honouring the heritage of the building and not being able to adjust floor levels without intruding upon materials that are a century and a half old. It's also conceivable that parliamentarians, who tend to be very sensitive to this kind of need, if they were in a position to say so, would have said that on this occasion we were going to override the heritage consideration for the sake of accessibility.
Looking forward, I think this is a good example of the kind of thing where you hit some kind of line, and where it would be helpful to have people and parliamentarians to say that in this case something overrides another normally absolutely solid line, and that a red line is actually not a red line in this case.