I do think that there's a balance here that has to be struck, and clearly we're on a different side of that balance, but what zero-hours contracts do offer is they do offer that flexibility for workers, offering workers patterns that suit their personal circumstances and give them the ability to work in a way that suits them. Zero-hours contracts also provide the flexibility for businesses, allowing them to meet customer demand at busier times as well. That's one of the things that also is important here, and this is why my colleagues and I on this side can't support that part of your motion. But I do suspect that what we want to achieve is the same—it's just there's a difference about how we achieve it, and there's a different balance here in that regard. But workers should be able to secure fair work, and employees should be able to have the right to ask their employer for more predictable and stable contracts if they prefer. This is the crux of our amendment, taking the approach, here, of the UK Government in their commitments to protect workers' rights as well. We do need to have an approach that empowers workers, gives them the ability to choose what contract best suits their personal and financial requirements. Whilst the European Union sets out the minimum requirements that workers should enjoy, the UK Government has consistently exceeded them, and has led the way in enhancing the rights of workers. This includes expanding upon EU maternity entitlements and parental leave. New proposals include providing greater protection for pregnant women [Interruption.]—in a moment—and new parents from redundancy, and extending current protections enjoyed by parents to other parents, such as those returning from shared parental leave. Yes.