As to the underlying points, of course I agree. In our code and our guide, as I've already said, we invite members to consider what is reasonably likely to be thought by others, and not merely the actuality of their interests, so I repeat that.
If I may, I think the beginning of your question makes me think that it's worth emphasizing the difference in form between legislation and quasi-legislation. Legislation does two things: It imposes duties and it confers rights. The reality is that it's one thing, because a duty is the corollary of the right. However, that's all it does. Legislation cannot change attitudes. It cannot change behaviour, and it cannot impose propriety.
Quasi-legislation—and our code of conduct is quasi-legislation— cannot impose duties and it cannot confer rights, but what it can do is influence behaviour. It can use soft letter terminology. It can use softer, more open terminology of the kind that is properly deployed in relation to morals and ethics and considerations that we want members and others to have in mind.
What I would invite the committee to think about very carefully is to get the legislative hierarchy right. As I said, I'm not here as a legislative drafter; I'm here as a regulator. I'm not going to make any comments on the specific technicalities of your legislation, but get that legislative hierarchy right. Get the rights and duties clearly ensconced in legislation, in clear, certain and firm language. Where it comes down to wanting not to control but to influence, you come down to a quasi-legislative environment that is susceptible to the use of the soft letter principles that you want people to be guided by in their behaviour.
Is that relevant to the question?