I thank the Member for his comments. I'm disappointed at the outset about the suggestion that the Government would not be committed to taking action to improve services were it not for the Bill. That is simply not true. If he had listened to previous debates within this Chamber, he would recognise that—and our previous meetings. It is simply not true to say that, without his Bill, there would be no code. There was a commitment given by this Government some time ago to look at a code to try and provide greater permanence and certainty about what our expectations are for the delivery of services. It would have to—it’s simply not a case of a code being so transient that it is of no value. I don’t accept that at all. We have a number of codes that directly affect service provision and outcomes for people. If any person in the future wished to change the code or revoke it, they would have to positively do so. The code is already planned in to the work that we have, so we have budgeted for it and expect not only to go through the process of consultation but to deliver services. The Bill and the model that you propose would direct services in a different direction. It is perfectly reasonable for me to point out to Members that using money in a different way would provide different outcomes.

The Bill that he proposes, I believe, would be a poor use of resource and would take it away from direct service provision. It is a matter for him to make the case for his Bill and the money that he wishes to see used and what that actual resource is. There will of course be robust scrutiny from people who do still broadly agree that we want to improve services with and for autistic people. We do, however, have an honest disagreement about whether a more rigid path of legislation is the right answer for doing so.