But in answer to the question, "Why don't we just persevere with the voluntary code that is in place?", the member is suggesting that that is sufficient. What I'd like to draw the member's attention to, and he may not have seen it, is a document actually produced by the Gas Industry Company itself. This is, of course, the body which is, essentially, owned by the industry. It is the industry regulator—so in many ways is the voice of industry—which really clearly lays out what they see as the shortcomings with the current voluntary regime and makes the case of why there actually does need to be a mandatory code that is put into place. They talk about the arrangements "That are in place that ensure the effective and timely availability of gas production and storage outage information for all gas and related market participants." What they talk about is that a lack of credible compliance and enforcement mechanism in the voluntary regime means the costs of non-compliance with the upstream to disclosure code might not outweigh any benefits. What they talk about is the shortcomings, and they list these out really clearly and why it is they do want to move to exactly what this bill is putting in place. The structure of the code as a multilateral agreement between producers and gas storage owners means that the code can only be enforceable between those parties and limits the role of the affected parties in changes of the code. 