On the final point, any legislation that comes through this place, the Government won't, at this early stage, be negotiating or outlining how we'll look to work with members of our own group, with members who support the Government. We'd need to see the detail of any legislation and to take a view on it, Paul, and it's important that we do that. I don't think people would agree with the fiction that there's somehow not a view on it, and I'm being honest about this. We've had an honest disagreement about the right way forward to improve the lives of people with autism, and we can continue to disagree, but I don't want to set out that level of disagreement or the nature of it in a way that isn't honest. I don't want to try to say something here that you and I know that I wouldn't really agree to do and support. 

Part of our challenge is that, the legislation in England, I can't see any real evidence that it's led to a significant and sustainable improvement in services. And so I'm looking for whether legislation will really deliver and deliver the sort of improvements you and I both want to see, and be a better way to do that than the path we've set out with the resources we have already made available. I think lots of people have a lack of faith that politicians will deliver on their promises and sometimes that leads to people saying, 'Change the law and that will make sure that services happen.' Actually, it still requires a variety of different decisions to be made, and that includes the budget choices we made, and it includes the work we've already done with different partners to deliver the four integrated services that are making a real and positive difference to families in those four parts of the country, and that we are committed to rolling out. 

And, in terms of a code and the point and the purpose, well, you know as well as I, because we've had these conversations in the past, that the code is about trying to make sure that we deliver on the responsibilities that actually exist already within statute, to make sure that they're real rather than illusory or simply talked about and pointed to in a piece of legislation but not made real for people. And I know from my previous life—I'm a lawyer in recovery as opposed to a lawyer who's been dragged back into it, looking at my poor, misfortunate colleague Jeremy Miles. I used to be a lawyer, and so I'm well aware that, in dealing with the law, the rights that people have are only real if you can enforce them. And what does that mean? And it's always better to help to give people advice so they can actually deal with their rights and responsibilities in a way that doesn't require the involvement of lawyers. There's a challenge there about making sure that it's a real way of working, and the culture change that we talk about—that's what we're trying to deliver and make sure that that leads to an improvement in service.

And on your point about whether people should be at the centre of our direction of travel, yes, that's absolutely right—you see that in a range of different areas across the Government, a range of different activities. That's why, in my initial statement, I made it clear that people with autism are part of helping us to draft the code that we're looking to. So, we'll continue to involve people with autism, we'll continue to listen to them, their real lived experience, to make sure that the shared objectives we have are being delivered upon. That's the aim and objective of this Government, and that will continue to guide us in our approach to services and any future debate about legislation.