Thank you. I do recognise this is an area where there are differences of view, but we are genuinely trying to accommodate people on all sides in recognising some of the complexities that exist.

And I recognise that Angela Burns has redrafted the amendment she tabled at Stage 2 because of the concerns about access to people's homes, but I still come back to the drafting that is still in here about an exhaustive list of circumstances, and it just isn't possible to draft in that way. It's always dangerous when you start to have a list of what you may or may not do. There will always be circumstances outside the list, even with the finest minds on the planet all in the same place at the same time. I say this from my past life, when being a lawyer—lots of the same lawyers will agree, and lots of the same lawyers will disagree, about exactly the same point and exactly the same wording. So, trying to get to the point where we have an exhaustive list in each those areas I think is not something that we should say is something that we could safely or properly draft and contemplate and provide to people; I think it would give a false level of assurance. The point about the code is we'll develop it together, with the citizen voice body, with others, including people in health and social care, on what the practical circumstances mean.

I'll take the intervention and then I'll finish; I can see the time and I'm keen to finish, and other Members are too.